Softpanorama

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

American exceptionalism bulletin, 2018

Home 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jul 09, 2018] On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking Rachel Corrie pancakes to celebrate the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ParadiseNow Giraldi always says what needs to be said. Excellent article.

Speaking of the news that evaporates--"The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media"--and of the stories that disappear an hour or so after they are posted...

I've never come across anyone in the US who had seen or heard of the story that popped up on my monitor one day while working in a newsroom in Los Angeles, a headline piece by the BBC stating that the California legislature in Sacramento had just passed a resolution apologizing to Mel Gibson for the treatment he was subjected to after his drunken comments were illegally relayed to the press. The article also reported that legislation was passed increasing fines and jail penalties in California for anyone who illegally gave or sold arrest information to the media.

The story had some serious bearing on our immediate market as numerous celebrities' private medical information etc were being illegally gathered and sold to news outlets. I brought it to the attention of my (Jewish) chief editor who read the article, thanked me for the heads up, then completely ignored it.

Shortly after the piece just evaporated from the BBC site, and to this day I can find no trace of it in their archives.

On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes' to celebrate the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.


Jmaie , July 4, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes'

Here's my take as a (non-Jewish) American.

My sympathies are with the Palestinians with regards to trying somehow to estabilsh sustainable territorial boundaries. IMHO Israel is clearly stealing land by building settlements in the West Bank. But given the ad-hoc nature of the current borders and the intent of the various parties, , God/Allah knows how this can be reasonably adjudicated.

I am ambivalent with regards to the plight of those in Gaza, Egypt is certainly in a position to help. The southern border is after all under their control.

Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part) seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation.

Both parties seem to regard the other as filth, undeserving of human compassion. How we move forward from here is beyond my ability to guess.

Arab neighbors seem to view refugees as pawns to be kept in squalor for their own political aims.

It seems like (and this is my own reading from afar) Hamas uses the "right of return" as an issue to turn gullible Palestinian youth into canon fodder. It's been 75 years and Israel is stronger than ever. Time to wake up and smell the coffee

There is so damn much much fault on both sides .

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up .

jilles dykstra , July 4, 2018 at 6:31 am GMT
@Jmaie

" Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part) seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation. "

What do you suggest the inmates of the Gaza concentration camp can do to get attention to their plight ?
The only way seems to be to provoke Israel into some retaliatory action.
Netanyahu is as stupid as Hitler, who let himself be provoked by Poland.
And indeed, both sides see the other as dirt.

jilles dykstra , July 4, 2018 at 6:40 am GMT
@CCR

They did drive the Palestinians out...

Jabotinski in 1923 saw it well 'just force will make Palestinians give up their lands'. But he did not foresee that they never really would give up.

What he also did not foresee that the ethnic cleansing would cause a growth of the number of Palestinians. As far as I can see Israel has no long time strategy for dealing with the Palestinian problem.

Trying to convince the great majority of the world's countries in the UN Assembly that they're all wrong, and Israel right, lunacy.

byrresheim , July 4, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
@Jmaie

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up .

Thank you for unmasking yourself in the last sentence

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT
@Jmaie

New Zionist shill on the block, 'jmaie'

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up

Buddy, you really are FILTH.

[Jul 08, 2018] American Exceptionalism = National Narcissism

Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Minnesota Mary , September 8, 2015 at 8:40 pm GMT

@Moi

American Exceptionalism = National Narcissism. Same with Jewish Exceptionalism. Both lead to hubris which will be the undoing of America and Israel.

[Jul 08, 2018] A 29-year-old clerical employee in the Escondido City Manager's Office was forced out of his job this week after city officials learned he operates an anti-Semitic website and is active in a movement that blames Jews for the 9/11 terror attacks

Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , September 13, 2015 at 2:06 am GMT

Ex-city worker runs anti-Semitic website
Man quits Escondido job after being told be fired or resign

By J. Harry Jones | 6:05 p.m. Sept. 10, 2015

ESCONDIDO -- A 29-year-old clerical employee in the Escondido City Manager's Office was forced out of his job this week after city officials learned he operates an anti-Semitic website and is active in a movement that blames Jews for the 9/11 terror attacks. --

City officials said they were unaware at the time that Friend is an outspoken blogger and contributor to several white supremacist publications. --

"(I thought) it was inevitable that my political and historical views would become known to the city," he said in an email to the Union-Tribune. "I thought that their knowledge of my writing, publishing, and speaking activities, as well as the political and historical perspective I openly espouse, would ultimately result in my termination."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/10/escondido-fired-city-manager-office-anti-Semitic/

FREEDOM OF SPEECH gets a different accent I guess depending on the contents

[Jul 07, 2018] When the country is in US crosshears the elite of this country should better washet out: color revolutions has thier own dynamic and after they are lauchend it is more difficult to stop them that to at the very begnning. Also in such cases, as EuroMaydan has shown, an importnat role is played by turncoats with the goverment

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , July 4, 2018 at 2:54 am GMT

US and Israel are attempting to use internal pressure within Iran yet again with the intent of sparking enough strife for a regime change:

Indeed a high level joint US-Israeli "working group" has been meeting for months with just this goal in mind as Axios confirms in a bombshell new report: "Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country's government."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-03/us-and-israel-form-working-group-overthrow-iran-government

[Jul 07, 2018] ChuckOrloski

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: July 3, 2018 at 1:02 pm GMT 200 Words Hi Phil,

In your article posted here two (2) weeks ago at U.R., fyi, the enthusiastic & angry commenter "Harbinger" hit hard & perhaps unfairly at the articulate & well meaning dissident commenter "Art."

Harbinger's key contribution was the absolute futility of using the ultra-corrupt & omnipresent Jewish (ZUSA) political system to change it for America's benefit.

We all recall a percentage of Americans having hope & faith in Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Nonetheless, anxious to rise in ZUS presidential standing, Rand found it necessary to visit the Jerusalem's Western (Wailing) Wall, & wearing a yarmulke. A.k.a., the necessity for kissing the correct ass.

This year, Rand Paul cast the decisive vote to confirm warmongering Zionist Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. (Zigh)

Acknowledging impotent defeatism inherent in Harbinger's & my position, I am sincerely open for all criticism here.

P.S. Today is the 30th anniversary of the ZUS's barbaric shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, the Vincennes. 290 casualties! 66 children. US Navy guided missile Commander, William Rogers, was cleared of any wrongdoing & awarded America's "Legion of Merit" medal.
A question, my U.R. Brothers. Does anyone here recall any Congressional or Executive branch outrage?


RVBlake , July 3, 2018 at 5:25 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski

That happened in 1988. I was active duty military then and the unit used to receive the "Navy Times", a newspaper for members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the atrocity.

ChuckOrloski , July 3, 2018 at 6:46 pm GMT
@RVBlake

Writing apparently as a patriotic & principled American military veteran, RVBlake said:
"I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity."

Hi RVBlake,

Above, neither do I!

Nonetheless, a sincere thanks for your "higher" service to our very sick society & your having honorably called the U.S. Navy's attack upon the defenseless Iranian passenger airplane what it really was -- an "atrocity."

Around the year 2006, I do recall a dreaded sense of shame when faux "war hero," Senator John McCain, modified the popular Beach Boys song lyric to "Barbara Ann," and to the delight of his Zio indoctrinated political supporters (at a rally), he fiendishly intoned, "Bomb, bomb Iran!"

Fyi, RVBlake, a few months ago, author & U.S. military veteran, Philip Giraldi, wrote a great U.R. article about our "Zionized military."

On Independence Day Eve, you will ever more so appreciate P.G.'s higher service to our country. Thanks again!

RVBlake , July 3, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Thank you. The only reason I ever read The American Conservative years ago was Phil Giraldi. I was astounded when I learned he worked for the CIA. Speaking of atrocities, this may not qualify, but days after the Gulf War, in '91, there was a local luncheon given for the officers stationed at various units in the city, Savannah, GA. I didn't attend, as usual, but the lieutenant with whom I shared an office did, and she informed me of the festivities. After lunch, apparently they set up a projector and began showing live footage of the Highway of Death, the road from Kuwait to Iraq, filled with fleeing, terrified Iraqi soldiers on their way home, with no taste for combat. My colleague told me of the laughter that filled the luncheon room at the sight of the Americans bombing and littering the Highway with the mangled remains of the Iraqis. It was nauseating to hear of this reaction.

ChuckOrloski , July 4, 2018 at 12:17 am GMT
@RVBlake

Hi RVBlake,

I disdain U.S. military officers who would assemble and laugh at live footage from the "Highway of Death."

Fyi, I am the only son (child) of the late WWII veteran, P.F.C. Charles Orloski, Sr. Wounded by Japanese mortar fire during Leyte combat, my father spoke proudly about having fought Japs / Nips. Fowler & Williams truck driver, a patriotic Teamster, my Dad was also grateful for Harry Truman's nuclear bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki because it "saved American soldier lives."

Fyi, in August 1970, drafted, I entered Basic Training at Fort Polk, La. and also did 11-Bravo A.I T. in North Fort (Polk).

Incredibly, the antiwar movement was active among "Fresh Meat" inside barracks but every soldier was indoctrinated to hate what Springsteen rather flippantly described (in song) as the "Yellow Man."

While marching along toward "Tigerland," every recruit had to sing, "I wannabe an Airborne Ranger, I wanna live a life of danger, & I wanna kill some Charlie Cong."
Except the gung-ho and "Grunts" who desired officer promotion "bars," most of the guys in my Company just wanted to smoke, fuck, & go home.

At present, I hate how the George H.W. Bush administration easily managed to make average Americans "get over" their hesitancy about the unnecessary, immoral, & deadly Vietnam War and proceed to dust Islamics Republican Guard in what Patrick Buchanan called a "Turkey Shoot" & where General Schwarzkopf became a heroic conqueror, household name.

By the time of the infamous W. Bush Zionist presidency, the all volunteer ZUS Army was indoctrinated to hate and want to kill Muslims, a.k.a., those "ragheads" who did 9/11 & have WMD's.

Taking target practice at the Koran, shooting & tossing Muzzies into river, raiding Iraqi mosques, and "non-combatant" prisoner torture became S.O.P., rules-of-engagement.

(Zigh) NFL's Pat Tillman was going-ho once.

And poor (& pregnant?) Private Lyndie England? She never got a distinguished service medal for her role at Abu Ghraib & I really wonder what she'll be doing tomorrow, Fourth of July.

I'll try & stop yapping now, RVBlake. Summarized, I support the basic soldier who wants to believe in an honorable America. And not the ZUS War Criminals, Pentagon Chiefs of Staff, & M.I.C. contractors who collectively "drum-up" global work opportunities.

Fyi, nine total years service, stateside, discharged in 1979, Specialist 4, Pennsylvania Army Reserves National Guard.
(zzZigh) I did not fight the "Yellow Man, but come Winter 2001, & employed by a Syracuse, NY-based private corporation, I did many bizarre Haz-Mat emergency responses to White Powder (Anthrax) threats in eastern Pennsylvania.

Some incidents were gut-busting laughers for the Field Technicians and me!

Thanks for patience, RV.

[Jul 07, 2018] Correcting the historical record is not being a "fanboy" of anyone. The teaching and interpretation of history has far reaching consequences for the people, and its precisely the distortion and falsification of said history which leads to its mass manipulation

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rogue

Umm, do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I have not the slightest interest in debating you or anyone else at UR regarding the Holocaust, whether it's genuine or the biggest scam ever pulled, or maybe something in between. Does the truth on this and other events like 9/11 matter? For sure. But it's not the point I'm making.

What I'm pointing out is that you often preface your Codoh web address with "level playing field, no name calling" which implies, at least, that you are trying to approach the Holocaust and the JQ/Israel wider issues without prejudice or obvious bias.

However you lose no opportunity to slag off Jews no matter what the discussion or context is about. Their looks, intelligence, well kinda everything.

That's the point I'm making and nowt else. So don't waste your time getting back to me with the likes of "Aha! You can't refute my Codoh arguments!"

That Jews are not entirely the oppressed innocents depicted in endless propaganda, I'm well aware of.

FWIW, I've been looking at revisionist stuff for several years. But one thing I always treat with caution on WW2 revision is that most revisionists seem to be fanboys of Hitler. Michael Hoffman also doesn't believe in the Holocaust but he got flack for saying Hitler was disastrous for Germany.

Anyway, I'm not hostile to your endless Codoh references; I find it quite amusing.

Mulegino1 , July 5, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT

Correcting the historical record is not being a "fanboy" of anyone. The teaching and interpretation of history has far reaching consequences for the people, and its precisely the distortion and falsification of said history which leads to its mass manipulation .

The current establishment supported mythology is that of the good war against the evil Hitler, who was the most wicked man in history and the German nation that he and his followers held in hypnotic trance committed history's greatest crime. Hitler alone bore the enormous preponderance of guilt in the beginning of history's greatest and most destructive war. As a result, a coalition of the righteous coalesced around the banners of freedom and "liberation." and "saved the world" from this unique and all encompassing evil, primarily by "liberating" the European people and saving the Jews from total extermination.

Applied to any other historical time frame, the last narrative would sound like the plot for a bad Hollywood movie. But for the former enemies of National Socialist Germany , this Manichean legend serves as the foundation for the current Atlanticist-Zionist hegemony over much of the globe. Every time a leader emerges that seeks political independence and financial sovereignty for his people, the situation is a new Munich, the leader is the next "Hitler" and those who oppose him are the new, prescient and brave Churchill and FDR. It has become a geopolitical recurring rite of hegemony.

For those who have bothered to study the matter in any depth it has not been too much of a chore to figure out that Hitler, while no boy scout or saint, never had any intention to murder all of the Jews of Europe. He did not desire perpetual wars of conquest, only territorial readjustments. He was not even particularly bellicose, and desired the construction of a "national socialist state of the first order" wherein the people he governed would enjoy a decent standard of living and a dignified peace with their European neighbors. Hitler made numerous offers of disarmament agreements to both France and Britain, all of which were rebuffed except the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which gave Great Britain a considerable advantage in warship tonnage. His initial "territorial grabs" all involved territory ripped from Germany in the Versailles Agreement, and not all of that, since he kept to his agreement with Italy regarding South Tyrol and made no demands on France for the return of Alsace Lorraine. Hitler's initial policy regarding Danzig and the Corridor were much more conciliatory than that of his Weimar predecessors.

Many serious historians now acknowledge that Hitler does not bear sole or even primary responsibility for the war, which appears to have been foisted upon Germany by the British War party, international Zionist elements and Germanophobes and closet communists in the FDR administration- primarily for economic and financial reasons.

The modern establishment view is that Hitler "seduced" the German masses into becoming his blind followers by his hypnotic oratory.- as if Weimar Germany was not undergoing mass unemployment, starvation, demoralization and outright degradation- Berlin was the sex capital of Europe, for God's sake! What bow tied bourgeois politician were the Germans going to turn to to save them from from economic and social despair and starvation? Hitler's economic recovery speaks for itself.

[Jul 07, 2018] Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , July 5, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT

@SolontoCroesus

These look interesting:

A recent book that summarize and adds to Quigley's work and exposes how WWI was a lie set up by the secret elites working in broad daylight is Hidden History.

It shows how the elites worked with the media and the UK weapons industry to demonize Germany.

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

After starting a deadly but profitable war and dragging the US into it, the victorious powers held the Paris Peace Conference in the year 1919.
This was the birth of "internationalist society" & Atlanticism.

The Emergence of International Society in the 1920s

https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-International-Society-1920s/dp/1107021138

[Jul 07, 2018] All social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dissident X , July 5, 2018 at 2:23 am GMT

@bj

thank you for your comment.

I should like to cite several passages from Yuval Harari's excellent book, " Sapiens ":

p.210: " all social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures.
two distinct criteria:
1. Religions hold that there is a superhuman order, which is not the product of human whims or agreements.
2. Based on this superhuman order, religion establishes norms and values that it considers binding.
"
p. 195 It's for your own good : " Evolution has made Homo sapiens. like other social mammals, a xenophobic creature. Sapiens instinctively divide humanity into two parts, 'we' and 'they'. We are people like you and me, who share our language, religion and customs. We are all responsible for each other, but not responsible for them. We were always distinct from them, we owe them nothing. We don't want to see any of them in our territory, and we don't care an iota what happens in their territory. They are barely even human. "

p. 228 The Worship of Man : " if we take into consideration natural-law religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has witnessed the rise of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism, and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam. "

p. 242 Blind Clio : " Ever more scholars see cultures as a kind of mental infection or parasite, with humans as its unwitting host. Organic parasites, such as viruses, live inside the body of their host. They multiply and spread from one host to the other, feeding off their hosts, weakening them, and sometimes killing them. As long as the hosts live long enough to pass along the parasite, it cares little about the condition of its host. In just this fashion, cultural ideas live inside the minds of humans. They multiply and spread from one host to another, occasionally weakening the host and sometimes even killing them. – can compel a human to dedicate his or her life to spreading that idea, even at the price of death. The human dies, but the idea spreads. . Successful cultures are those that excel in reproducing their memes, irrespective of the costs and benefits to their human hosts. Similar arguments are common in the social sciences, under the aegis of game theory. Game theory explains how in multi-player systems, views and behaviour patterns that harm all players nevertheless manage to take root and spread. "

[Jul 07, 2018] Will Izreal survive, and id so for how long?

The level of hatred between Palestinians and Israelis, exasergated by the resent killing and Gaza events, might spell troubles...
Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Talha , July 5, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Tyrion 2

Israel is in the best position it has ever been. Since 1948, Israel has only gone from strength to strength.

This doesn't make sense to the casual observer. In the past, Israelis had the guts to take massive casualties to win a war on multiple fronts, today (in 2006) they took like 130 casualties against an opponent without any air force or navy and a very small budget had a horribly hard time at it. Furthermore, they are more isolated at the UN than ever before. It's not just about them, but the relative strength of those around them – for instance Turkey is growing in strength and further away from Israel.

Middle Easterners are perfectly capable of accepting tiny Israel into their fold without reducing Israel's sovereignity.

Not the way Israel is going swallowing up more of the West Bank and (importantly) its claims to Jerusalem without regard to others. And in an economic-military bloc, sovereignty is always negotiated. That's part of the trade off.

Every year that passes normalises Israel in the Middle East and every year Israel fits in better.

I hope so. There is no doubt about the fact that Israel in the brainchild of atheist, European Jews. They often wrote how frustrated they were with local Jews in Iraq or Egypt that didn't want anything to do with their pipe dream. Of course, our idiot Arab nationalists helped things along by considering all of their native Jews (who had lived just fine in those lands for centuries and weren't doing too bad) to be a fifth column.

Look, Westerners, the Middle East can do a developed productive economy and maintain a healthy living culture.

I have no problem with Muslims learning good, productive habits from Jews or anyone else – that has never been the problem historically. Israel can learn from the Muslim nations as well; there is nothing healthy about have gay PRIDE parades in the holy city of Jerusalem.

The issue that Israelis must come to terms with is:
If their future (as their past) is as part of the ME, then they must stop causing havoc in the area; denying that Israel (or their partisans in power in the US) is constantly calling for its US war dogs to attack everyone it perceives as a threat is nonsense. If they want to go back to where they can freely move about in the ME and settle anywhere they want (especially their centuries-old stomping grounds), they have to start shifting their attitudes. And yes, the Muslims in the area need to shift their attitudes also to before the nonsense of Arab nationalism took over.

That is the problem I see, and Israelis seem to not get the message that time is on the side of the Muslims in that region – always has been. 10, 20, 50, 500 years – it doesn't matter. But they seem to want to double down on what is likely to piss off everyone in the area.

Peace.

[Jul 07, 2018] Apparently IDF escalation procedures include sniping clearly visible female nurses:

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

@Incitatus

"I haven't seen a good account of what happened but I assume the IDF followed the escalation drills which every modern army learns."

Unaware of steps (if any) leading to live fire killing dozens, but unequivocal it's "most humane"? Blind faith? Caution. It easily leads to disaster, as Americans know too well.

"Either you have a border you can enfore or you don't. Either you have a nation or you don't."

Means of enforcement is the question. Israel's sovereignty was never threatened. Cold-blooded deadly force was apparently used. A PR bonanza for enemies of Israel.

"now you will say "but America still exists" but that is to fetishise the name at the expense of its actual meaning. What America was no longer exists and that is mostly because it was given away at the Southern border."

America is change. Should borders be controlled and law enforced? Yes. With deadly force as the first option? Don't think so.

If Trump was serious he'd make E-Verify mandatory - jobs for illegals would vanish. Cheap labor is addictive for employers, especially when the threat of deportation boosts productivity. Trump uses the H-2B visa program. 143 of 144 jobs went to aliens at three of his properties: https://www.vox.com/2018/2/13/16466542/trump-h-2b-guest-workers. MAGA!

'do you have a "good thing" when minorities are murdered and their murderers gloat and run free?'
"People are shot for property crimes all over the world all of the time."

The incinerated Dawabsheh family was the intended reference. There is a vocal support group – cheerleaders for arson and murder – empowered by the crime and unabashedly celebrating it.

Extremism tests any nation. Public regard and legal remedy indicates credible restraint or permissiveness that can be dangerous.

'American media is disproportionately silent in criticism of Likud compared with Israeli media. Why'
"Why does the Israeli media report more on Israel than the American media reports on Israel?"

Sorry for any confusion. The point intended was Israeli media has a healthy mix of opinion and criticism. US media, understandably briefer, edits out the critical, as if Likud filters coverage. A disservice to Israel IMO.

'How many F-35s is the US giving Iraq, Syria, Iran?'
"Superpowers give regional powers weapons they have the technical ability to sustain and when they have the military ability to be useful to the superpower. None of those three countries fit both"

Disproportionately powerful, deadly weapons – F-35s or sniper rifles - can, in ease of use, corrupt all that possess them. They easily become the first option, rather than last resort. US 'Shock and Awe' in Iraq 2003 is a good example.

With respect "most humane" is mind-fart language. Understandable on Unz Planet Germania, where many pine for the good-old Third Reich, laud Hitler, and routinely serve up other rubbish. But unconvincing and ultimately a disservice to those you support. Just a thought.

Talha , July 5, 2018 at 12:41 am GMT

Yes, apparently escalation procedures include sniping clearly visible female nurses:

Nice to have you back.

[Jul 07, 2018] I the category of Middle Eastern countries, Israel does fairly well. In the category of Western countries Israel comes up pretty far short

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Tyrion


What a treat! Did we miss the "moderate and sensible" non-lethal means of restraint that 'escalated' to "lethal force"? Please enumerate them. Chronologically.
I haven't seen a good account of what happened in the day either, but I assume the IDF followed the escalation drills which every modern army learns.

With respect, the question is not willingness to defend a "good thing" with lethal force. Was the survival of Israel (which I support) ever in doubt? Is the survival of the US in doubt?
Yes. Either you have a border you can enfore or you don't. Either you have a nation or you don't.

Of course now you will say "but America still exists" but that is to fetishise the name at the expense of its actual meaning. What America was no longer exists and that is mostly because it was given away at the Southern border.


The question is do you have a "good thing" when minorities are murdered and their murderers gloat and run free?
People are shot for property crimes all over the world all of the time. Very rarely is it considered murder. Why is this different?

Still waiting:
I ignored what was irrelevant to try to keep this on subject, honest and simple. But whatever...

• How many F-35s is the US giving Iraq, Syria, Iran?
Superpowers give regional powers weapons they have the technical ability to sustain and when they have the military ability to be useful to the superpower. None of those three countries fit both.

• Why should Likud conduct be excused by comparing it to those Israel routinely condemns?
I never said it should.

• Does "sniping" mean shooting/killing/maiming unarmed people from a safe distance?
All shooting is best done from a safe distance. That doesn't mean other things should be left undefended though.

• Is "sniping" "more humane" than water-cannon, tear gas, and other non-lethal restraint?
It is an escalation for when those haven't worked or there's a reasonable assumption that they won't. The former is likely the case here.

• American media is disproportionately silent in criticism of Likud compared with Israeli media. Why
Why does the Israeli media report more on Israel than the American media reports on Israel?

Need I actually answer that?

(To anyone else I missed...apologies, I'm sure your words were very kind but England won on penalties last night so I had better things to think about.)


Wizard of Oz , July 4, 2018 at 11:55 am GMT

You seem not to have noticed that there were two similar sanguinary episodes a couple of weeks apart handled in exactly the same way without learning any lessons from the first experience.

Let's look at what should have been understood in the second occasion at worst.

1. The mostly (by far) unarmed civilians demonstrated and made a few symbolic gestures reflecting their claim that they were entitled to return to their families' lands, but none actually entered territory outside Gaza. If a bunch of unpredictable hoodlums were behaving equivalently near the fence of a householder with, say, four adult males at home and armed with rifles it would be murder if one of the armed defenders fired over the defence to kill one of the hoodlums. If one jumped or broke down the fence then it would be an arguable though not certain defence to a charge of murder if the intruder was immediately shot and killed.

2. Even if the Palestinians had broken through the fence it should be noted that it would not have been like an incipient home invasion let alone a threat to Israeli security. After all it is not as though there are Israeli residential suburbs anywhere near the Gaza border. But suppose they had broken through the fence rather than just tossed some totally ineffectual missiles over it. Suppose some protestors had broken through and were brandishing weapons. Then a couple of bursts of machine gun fire would have finished them off and might (just) have been justified. But no such restraint was shown.

Can you really think of any justification for the way it was handled that doesn't fall back on an argument that sufficiently determined brutality is the only way to get rid of Hamas and deliver a Palestinian negotiating party that will have to be grateful for whatever it is offered?

Tyrion 2 , Website July 4, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

As far as I can tell, the Palestinians were testing the borders of Israel and the Israelis' resolve to defend those borders.

If you gather into a big mob and you try to forcibly march over the border to a sensible nation, especially one you love calling for the destruction of, then you can expect to get shot.

2. Even if the Palestinians had broken through the fence it should be noted that it would not have been like an incipient home invasion let alone a threat to Israeli security.

Yet Israel would have shown that they were unwilling to do what was necessary to maintain their borders. The troubles would have exacerbated exponentially.

Them Guys , July 4, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Wrong. Not "testing Israel borders" Rather it has been an Ongoing yearly event for at least past 8-10 years iirc. With the Main reason being to raise global awareness of the Palistinians Plight, and also of their actual factual truthful Return Rights.

People 300+Yards away from, and running farther away to avoid the Fanatical and Unquenchable Blood Lust Thirst, Jew IDF soldiers have been brainwashed with, since they were at the age of ONE Day Old. And got their first taste of it directly through their jewish mother's breast milk.

And still getting Shot in the Back, as many were, is NOT invading or entering or attempting to cross a border fence, that has been built ON Stolen Palestine Lands.

Ironic how I saw a recent, maybe in past 90 days, article about the percentage of Israeli Jewry that are Religious jews. And IIRC, the percent number of Atheist jew citizens and residing within Israel.

Was something like 67% atheist jews. I say ironic, since I too have met many American jews that claim they also are atheists. Yet in Every instance that I have asked them the question of.

"So What makes you as a jew think or believe you or other jews has some type ever lasting "Right to Return" to Palestine lands, which you jews call, Israel"?

Every one, Every time, answers back with: "Well God gave Us jews that right and the land"

They never seem to supply a good answer when I then ask: "So you as a jew admit being an atheist, yet you also state that, the god you don't believe in, Gave jews land and rights to go there when ever a jew feels like going and remain as long as that jew wishes to remain?"

Typically they remain answerless and silent, or most just call me a vile name like "Nazi jew hater" or an " anti-Semite Nazi racist".

IIRC there are also a Huge percentage of American jews that are also self defined as atheists, and I'd wager they too claim that a god they do not believe exists, somehow Gave land rights, like a Real Estate agent, to jews.

It does not suprize me since most jews in america, and israel also fully believe in every phony holyhoax claim ever claimed by so called "survivors" eh. It seems jews are always trying to out do each other when the issue is anything to do with that holyhoax, germany, germans, euro white folk, and making vast excuses for crooked and evil jews. They try to out do each other by conjuring up and inventing even bigger frauds and lies, as if it somehow makes a jew more virtuous to be considered as the biggest and best jewish fanatic and liar among jews.

Perhaps the unz-jazzman should pull a few strings, and get all these jews their very own Mensa Gold Embossed Certificate's. Due to jews being so able to invent so many huge lies etc. Maybe a usa Patent also for the jew invention of calling everyone jews hate, a nazi and antisemite eh.

Anon [298] Disclaimer , July 4, 2018 at 7:21 pm GMT
@Momus

Well, here's your problem. "Tyrion 2″, being fairly reasonable, wants to address Israel as a Middle Eastern country, in which category Israel does fairly well.

But if one wants to treat Israel as a Western country, and hold its conduct to the absurd standards to which most Jews in the West want to hold their own countries of residence, Israel comes up pretty far short.

[Jul 07, 2018] This is probably a sign that relations with Arab population in Izreal can't be mended

This clearly far right nationalists type of actions. While history is always imperfect analogy, but this is reminds us about Third Reich type of actions.
Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , July 3, 2018 at 9:30 pm GMT

A 13 year old child and 24 year old man, were both executed by Israeli Snipers on Friday [June 29th]. Along with the dead came upwards of 420 injuries, this included medical personnel and journalists.

Instead of running stories in an attempt to whitewash the murders and injuries this Friday, Mainstream Media completely ignored the entire series of events.

https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/07/01/video-msm-refuses-to-cover-gaza-killings/

[Jul 06, 2018] The argument for creationism as far as I've heard it posited, is that our earth was 'seeded' with the DNA molecule, (as presumably other planets throughout the universe were as well), and that this was done by some intelligent (or otherwise deliberate) agent. (G0d?)

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

foolisholdman , June 15, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

An argument that people use against the spontaneous occurrence of life is that there is almost zero chance of the right amino acids joining up. Anyone who has worked with string and cables knows that they have a quite extraordinary, almost uncanny, ability to get tangled up together. Before life happened, there were no bacteria to destroy emerging complexes of amino acids. (It has been shown that inorganic materials given the sort of conditions that the newly born planet would have had, can give rise to amino acids.) Also "almost zero chance" taken an almost infinite number of times over a very long period, adds up to a quite good chance.

Rurik , June 15, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

I enjoy reading your posts, AnonTN,

the probability of an emergence of any protein by chance is virtually nil.

probability

that's a tricky word, eh?

from what I've glimmered, it isn't proteins or even amino acids that people wonder over their original emergence by chance, but rather the (miraculous) DNA molecule itself.

How did those four amino acids arrange themselves in just that way?

The structure seems positively preternatural, and when it comes to the probability of such an 'accident', how likely was that?

The argument for creationism as far as I've heard it posited, is that our earth was 'seeded' with the DNA molecule, (as presumably other planets throughout the universe were as well), and that this was done by some intelligent (or otherwise deliberate) agent. (G0d?)

When you look at the DNA molecule, and ponder its probability, what is the likelihood that it sprang from the ooze by happenstance?

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT
@Rurik

Tell you what, you almost hit the nail on the head. The four bases of DNA could have appeared by chance in the primordial soup, got linked to deoxyribose and phosphates, and even got connected in various sequences. The hardest thing to explain is how the system that converts DNA to messenger RNA and especially the one that then translates RNA sequence into protein sequence (ribosomes with the supply of transfer RNAs for different codons and amino acids) emerged. I am not aware of any good model explaining that. My point is that hypothesizing that this was designed by some intelligent agency does not solve the problem: next you need to explain how that agency emerged. The answer that this agency (say, God) is eternal is essentially cheating: this answer would suffice for ribosomes, but it would be just as unsatisfying for a logically thinking person.

[Jul 06, 2018] I am pretty sure without WWII there would be no 1991.

Notable quotes:
"... While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sergey Krieger , June 16, 2018 at 6:12 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Compared to modern western leaders Kruschev was rather good leader and Brezhnev is downright genius. I was and am actually fond of Dear Leonid Iliich. So I believe it is not a matter of social political organization but systematic and probably human feature.

The West has been producing non entities, idiots and morons at the top with unerring consistency. It is just that conditions in the West are far more forgiving than in Russia. Also we have not mentioned destruction and suffering caused by war in ussr somewhat lagging in few aspects of life standards. Socialism slogan is from everyone by their abilities to everyone for their contribution.

Hence obviously hardworking and better contributing people should be rewarded especially like in Stalin times via glorifying and promoting them to higher status. Stahanov movement comes to mind.

I think Stalin genius is underappreciated. Regarding weapons manufacturing I believe it was a matter of great patriotic war shock.

That war in every respect has caused great damage to us including probably due to huge loss of Tim and best human material laying foundation for further problems. Stalin wasted 8-10 years of his life to first win the war and then rebuild the country. Imagine no war. I am pretty sure there would be no 1991.

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system.

Materially the people in some Western countries lived better than the Soviet people. However, the difference was ~2-3-fold at best, not 10+-fold as many in the USSR believed, and there were (and are) very few countries with higher living standards than Russia. As far as psychological wellbeing is concerned, the USSR compared to the West even better, except for the people with excellent education and willingness to work hard, like me. That's the PR campaign Soviet authorities lost to their peril: the support of better intellectually equipped and the most active people.

I agree that nobody, even the laziest and most useless, should go hungry today, but the difference between what those get and what hard-working people get should be many-fold. Otherwise, the society provides disincentive for the people who can contribute, dragging itself down.
Also, USSR should have paid more attention to the production of consumer goods, even if it meant fewer tanks and artillery pieces. It's policies made all these tanks useless, anyway, not to mention that today these tanks and other military hardware is used against Russia by former "brothers" (with "bothers" like that, who needs enemies).

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

I agree that the people who went to college in Soviet times are better educated and more creative than recent graduates. I am pretty sure that recent successes of Russian MIC are largely due to the Soviet legacy. We'll see what happens next, as "effective managers" they are cranking out now are totally useless in real life.

[Jul 06, 2018] Putin conversion from atheist to a believer

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

My personal opinion: it is exactly "Paris is worth a mass" conversion. It is based on Putin's actions, which suggest a very pragmatic (you can say cynical) person, who has the benefits of his country in mind (rather, who believes that benefits for his country are the best benefits for him). I could be wrong, though.

EugeneGur , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
@Frankie P

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity.

No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his least attractive features.

Thankfully that chapter of history is over

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is -- to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song -- is more alive than the living. The Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.

It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet standards -- culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does -- the Soviet Union will live one.

[Jul 06, 2018] An interesting variation of anti-Putin propaganda in blogs

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

@Quartermaster While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russian army usually outperform Russian economy

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , June 15, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT

Why (Oh Why) do they hate the Russians so much? Let me try to answer that question. Most armies in history were created for the purpose of enriching the host country by looting foreign lands. US are bucking that trend – they have an army that's looting mostly the host country for enriching the same army and those who support it (domestically).

Also, the best armies in history usually belonged to whoever happened to be the economic powerhouse at the moment – examples are too many to list them all – ancient Rome, Great Britain 16-19 century, France 19 century, Germany 19-20 century.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course – Genghis Khan – the Mongols hardly an economic powerhouse, yet a number one military power of its time.

Then we come to Russia. I don't know when exactly Russia underwent the Genghis Khanisation process, but it's apparent that they did and it served them well throughout their history. Meaning that their army usually outperforms their economy, and that's what's driving the west mad at least since Napoleon's times.

They think that Russia doesn't deserve to be a powerhouse like they are thanks to their military, because they believe that other than their military, the Russians are culturally, economically, civilizationally, and yes – even genetically inferior to the west.

Tough luck, chums. I have one answer to that: Maybe it's not Russia's fault that militarily they have always managed to outperform the west. Maybe the fault lies with you. How can you blame Russia for the fact that your armies suck? But, as they say in the US – you got to support the troops.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians.

Notable quotes:
"... Vladimir Putin is NO historian and his fascination with Solzhenitsyn is not a healthy one. Nobody denies the role of Jews (positive, as well as negative) in Russian History but Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians. In fact, it is infinitely more complex. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT

@Rurik

...Moreover, Vladimir Putin is NO historian and his fascination with Solzhenitsyn is not a healthy one. Nobody denies the role of Jews (positive, as well as negative) in Russian History but Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians. In fact, it is infinitely more complex.

But if you want to view it as one unstoppable Jewish juggernaut against Christ-loving Russians, who am I to suggest to you otherwise.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russia, the Neoconservatives, and the Real Issues Involved by Boyd D. Cathey

So Boyd D. Cathey claims that the main reason of anti-russian hysteria is that Russia represents an obstacle to establishing global US domninance -- a global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post ..."
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard ..."
"... Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils ..."
"... Two Hundred Years Together ..."
"... The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, ..."
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
"... as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com
155 Comments Reply

Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes) adopted new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.

The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.

That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.

One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top legislation.

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .

Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media. Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum ).

Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip Giraldi and Robert Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin.

For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.

Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the commentary ]

Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish persecution for the Neocons.

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!

Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped "has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has, understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time allies such as Syria.

Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors and allies?

More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received.

But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.

[Jul 06, 2018] Svidomite (Ukrainian nationalist anti-Russian view) has gotten greater academic play in US russian studies

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website June 16, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

You mean this chap?

http://russialist.org/francis-a-boyle-nyt-obit-on-dick-pipes/

An accurate contrast from what was written about Pipes by Jacob Helibrunn in The National Interest and Ira Straus in JRL.

The there's this leftist BS:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/richard-pipes-cold-war-russian-revolution (JRL Promoted)

The late Richard Pipes wasn't incorrect in his assertion that the image of a foreign intervention on the side of the Russian Civil War era Whites is a matter that has been quite bloated from reality.

The Germans did more for the Reds than just transport Lenin from Zurich to Petrograd. There was also the concerted soft power anti-White/pro-Red left activism in the West, as well as some other matters mentioned in these non-JRL promoted pieces:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/

https://www.eurasiareview.com/23032017-reexamining-russias-past-analysis/

The Jacobin piece linked at the very top of this note makes some broad inaccuracies on the Russian Civil War era violence. There was plenty of such on the side of the Reds, which BTW adversely affected a good number of Jews.

Towards the end of the Russian Civil War, the more objective of historians on this issue note that the Whites had noticeably maintained a better discipline of its forces concerning the issues of looting and violence. A hypothetical White victory wasn't destine for a Nazi/Nazi light scenario. One notes the exiled manner of many Whites including Anton Denikin and Peter Wrangel.

The pogroms against the Jews in Russian Civil War era Ukraine happened before the Whites established a primary base there. These pogroms included involvement from the forces loyal to Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petliura, as well as some locals.

Much of the historical accounting on this subject says that Petliura's forces were the most violent among Russian Civil War era combatants against the Jews. In more recent years, there seems to be an increase of claims stating differently -- which appear a blend of questionably biased views from some on the left and others (not necessarily on the left) taking an anti-White/pro-Petliura stance.

I'm not sure how pro-White Pipes was as suggested by the leftist author of the above linked Jacobin piece. I recall Pipes saying rather rather derisively that US based Russian studies programs had at one time been more influenced by the Whites. Whatever the degree of that being true has declined as the svidomite (Ukrainian nationalist anti-Russian view) has gotten greater academic play (Motyl, Kuzio, et al), mixed in with the leftist and JRL court appointed Russia friendly syndromes.

[Jul 06, 2018] If Ukraine drifts into chaos, its neighbors, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing themselves for the spillover

So far Ukrainian society holds well and I see no signs that it will collapse soon. Economics in dismal shape though...
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Erebus , June 16, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT

Look up Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:

I did, and as usual Ishenko takes an oblique approach that shines a light into obscure but critical corners.

What an eye opener this one is.

Not sure how much was lost in translation, but if I understood correctly the Russians are massing forces in the Western District, not because they fear an attack from NATO, or plan to attack Europe but to rescue Europe from a conflagration that will be sparked in Ukraine. That it was drifting into failed state status is well known, but that a religious war is in the offing was utterly unknown to me, and I suspect to most others here.

That in turn shines a light on why Poland and the Baltics are begging for US/NATO troops as well, and at least partially why US/NATO is delivering. As Ukraine drifts into chaos, its neighbours, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing themselves for the spillover. They have no desire to relive the decade+ blood orgy that erupted in the middle of the 20th C centred on Ukraine (where, IMHO, the real Holocaust happened).

Overwhelming force applied at an overwhelming pace is the best way of dealing with such an outbreak, and the Russians are the only party able to deliver. US/NATO forces can be expected to roar around in their APCs avoiding trouble and then claim credit in accordance with Western military tradition. Meanwhile, the Russians will go into mopping up the leftovers.

Makes a lot of sense if Ishchenko's read of the situation is right. It probably has a bigger impact on Dunford's and Gerasimov's meeting than the USM "going home".

Whew!
PS: Yes, I was aware of the Russian central bank selling off its USTs. With the Petro-Yuan and Western sanctions now in full swing, it really doesn't need $100B's worth to manage its U$ denominated imports.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russian "neoliberals" both grant-supported and ones that are not is a separate animal altogether

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US, regardless of their language proficiency.

Here, I have to politely disagree since Russian "liberals" both grant-supported and ones that are not is a separate animal altogether. Firs, most of them, grants or no grants, are the real deal, they got grants because they are the real deal, not the other way around, and causality in this case really matters. I don't need even to know if Mr. Nekrasov or Gozman are grant-eaters, their hatred of everything Russian is palpable. The only weaker feeling than hatred they have is contempt. This cannot be hidden -- it shines through. They do it for the idea and grants are just a bonus. It all goes back to Russian "Westerners" and liberals about whom Tyutchev (IIRC) left a profound paragraph.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this. My point is, all these "ideological Russia-haters" eat at least three times a day, and they are used to eating well (no McDonalds burgers for them, they prefer filet mignon). Yes, there is a long history of fights between "Westerners" and "Slavophiles" in Russia, going even before Tyutchev. However, being a "Westerner" one does not have to be a traitor. For example, Peter the Great was a "Westerner", yet he was clearly a Russian patriot (even though he was not quite Russian by blood). Whereas all this scum are traitors. In the US they would be compelled by the law to register as foreign agents.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 8:02 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

We are talking about the same thing with different words. My point is simply that there are whores who do it for money and there are whores who do it for both money and pleasure.

[Jul 06, 2018] I believe that sexual attraction to the same gender, as well as a desire to change one's gender, are symptoms of mental disorder.

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT

@Rurik

You are right. I am saying this as a biologist. The two genders in mammals ensure reproduction. I believe that sexual attraction to the same gender, as well as a desire to change one's gender, are symptoms of mental disorder. This does not mean that these mental patients should be discriminated against (like we don't discriminate against people suffering from depression or schizophrenia), but there are certain limitations imposed by their condition (say, we don't let blind people drive cars or pilot airplanes: this is not discrimination, this is protection of other members of the society). I was once told by a "progressive" true believer in political correctness that of course gay people in a straight society look strange. I pointed out that gay society cannot exist, it would die out in one generation, as all people, straight and gay, can only be produced by a heterosexual act. Even in case of artificial in vitro fertilization, you have to mix eggs with sperm, not eggs with eggs or sperm with sperm -- this is basic biology, nature does not give a hoot about politically correct BS.

Sergey Krieger , June 16, 2018 at 6:35 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Agree. I also wonder is there genetical predisposition to this condition? Some DNA damage? As you say. Were everyone gay we would have gone extinct.

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 6:55 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

We don't know. Mental disorders usually have a genetic component, so likely this one has it. Non-genetic (environmental) component would be important, too. Say, if you put too many male mice in one cage and don't feed them enough, some males will try to f..k other males.

Stress makes pretty much any mammal go crazy. However, because of political correctness, no real study of this subject is possible.

No researcher would put his/her career in jeopardy, especially considering how many other interesting problems there are in biology; no government agency would fund an honest study, as they don't want a backlash from the PC crowd. So, we have to wait for the societies that are not afflicted by the rot of PC, such as Russia or China, to develop to the point when someone focuses on that particular problem.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money

Notable quotes:
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.

However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended loot.

[Jul 06, 2018] The crisis of neoliberal society and American Empire is systemic and neocons are only are only one, however important, part of that.

Notable quotes:
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.

Agree entirely -- a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of liberalism as a whole.

The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.

[Jul 06, 2018] American military record of imperial adventures in second half of XX-early XXI century, once one discounts this turkey shoot of incompetent Iraq military in the Gulf Wars, is rather dismal.

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 5:13 pm GMT

@EliteCommInc.

The US does have the capability of going big.

No, it doesn't and, in fact, American military record of imperial adventures in second half of XX-early XXI century, once one discounts this turkey shoot of incompetent Iraq military in the Gulf Wars, is rather dismal. Including in the times when the US actually did have wherewithal to fight (relatively) big wars.

Today the United States is a bankrupt state with over-stretched military and grossly overrated technological and operational capabilities.

Empire needs military power -- NOBODY in the US top political echelons today, with some very-very few exceptions (fingers on one hand will be enough to count them), understands the nature of military power nor knows how to use it.

In other words -- they are incompetent. This competence, or lack thereof, is also the part of the capability.

[Jul 06, 2018] David R. Henderson on the Effects of War

Notable quotes:
"... The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | scotthorton.org

David Henderson joins the show to talk about the consequences of war for the American economy and the world political order. Henderson explains that many of the intrusive powers the state has today are the result of major crises, during which the state seizes some new power, and then after the crisis gives up much of that power again -- but not all of it. Over time these powers accumulate into the government we have today. The nascent income tax, for instance, was raised all the way to 77% for top earners during World War I, and then 'generously' lowered closer to modern levels after the war ended. Railroads were nationalized around the same time, and then privatized afterward but with much more regulation. Henderson identifies three crises that had the most impact in this area: World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. War in particular has dire consequences for government power, as demonstrated by the rise of Hitler's fascism in Europe and numerous socialist regimes in the East, all as a direct result of the aftermath of World War I. He advocates a return to defense, rather than offense, which would not only save American taxpayers billions each year, but would also avoid the blowback with which we've become all too familiar.

Discussed on the show:

David R. Henderson is a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and former professor of Economics at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is the author of The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey . Read his work at DavidRHenderson.com and AntiWar.com .

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott .
Check out Scott's Patreon page.

[Jul 06, 2018] The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits of the neoliberal box they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the world as it is and will be.

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Erebus


US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option...
I know, and should probably have made it clearer that when faced with that decision, the US will have to go home. The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits of the box they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the world as it is and will be.

Madeleine Albright's famous question to Gen. Powell 'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' can now be re-worded to ask "What's the point of having this enormous military edifice and expenditure if it isn't superb, or even effective?" The answer is that there is no point. Much of it can be jettisoned without affecting the US' real strategic situation, and almost all of it if its mandate were to be shrunk to defence of its homeland and close allies.

The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home". I can't even imagine how they're gonna do this in an organized way, but it's in everybody's interest that it happens as smoothly as possible. That those two seem to have built a professional rapport and even understanding is heartening.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 16, 2018 at 4:00 am GMT

The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home"

Most likely, at least Dunford, unlike most of US establishment is professional. Look up Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:

http://actualcomment.ru/tak-nachinayutsya-voyny-1806150926.html

Google translate should help.

Meanwhile, Russia since March 31 this year got rid off 50% of her US treasuries–today's news.

https://ria.ru/economy/20180616/1522835784.html

[Jul 06, 2018] But I do not think the neocons are ideologues unless lawless disregard for humanity in search of profit, is an ideology.

Notable quotes:
"... At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers): expensive war equipment makers, oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians, media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats. ..."
"... without globalism there is no neocon-ism, ..."
"... They will write laws, or get nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [317] Disclaimer ,

... ... ...

Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support the neocon ideology on the Internet? Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user security), which makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that negotiate the bits between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence units.

At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers): expensive war equipment makers, oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians, media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.

As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected government authority to support its neocon capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed sheep. No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without neocon-ism open competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights and patents would disappear and prices would move from controlled levels to competitive levels.

But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues"; unless lawless disregard for humanity in search of profit, is an ideology. I am not even sure they are tightly organized, they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible or intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control.

They will write laws, or get nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary.

I look at them as capitalist, who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who independently profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce a common collective set of extremely effective outcomes

[Jul 06, 2018] Ralph Peters is a nice example of the nuttiest neocons around

The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
Notable quotes:
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum. ..."
"... Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA ..."
"... He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained ..."
"... Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments. ..."
"... Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum.

Carlton Meyer , Website June 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT

Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.

He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained:

https://fredoneverything.org/dulce-et-decorum-est-if-someone-else-has-to-do-it/

Mikhail , Website June 14, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer

Peters has been hardcore anti-Russian and anti-Serb. His views are quite collapsible. Regarding one of his mass media appearances

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/17/dnc-kiev-regime-collusion-isnt-americas-best-interests.html

Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments.

Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS. You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.

Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions.

Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early 1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.

Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.

During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries.

Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia.

Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.

Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.

[Jul 06, 2018] Something about Richard Pipes

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website June 17, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Kind of like a broken clock, Pipes wasn't always wrong as noted in detail here:

http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-neoconservatives-and-the-real-issues-involved/#comment-2375645

He reminds me of the professor character played by Walter Malthau in the movie Fail Safe , which came out in the same year as another Cold War themed movie Dr. Strangelove

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 18, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT
@Mikhail

Kind of like a broken clock, Pipes wasn't always wrong as noted in detail here:

Pipes and Soviet history are two incompatible entities. They do not relate to each-other in anyway. Pipes' body of work, among many other things, is in the foundation of an American decline today.

[Jul 06, 2018] New PNAC formed. Called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI)

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm GMT

My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:

10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with practical programs grounded in fact and reason.

Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)

ah, so it was Dubya all along!

what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!

So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !

sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!

The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,

what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and catastrophic expense of America and the American people.

I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?

Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the ZUSA?

Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?

[Jul 06, 2018] Are terms "neocon" and "Jew" synonyms

They are not. Lobbing for MIC does not require to be Jewish, although many Jews are talented propagandists. Neocons and Zionists are more closely related, with Zionists being a subset of Neocons
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [965] Disclaimer , June 17, 2018 at 8:06 pm GMT

@Jake

The "deep state" has always existed everywhere, and always will. It's a feature, not a bug, depending on whether its interests coincide with the people's, or not. For example, many of the Romanovs were installed via "deep state" palace coups.

But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews" instead?

From the article:

>Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI) leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.

Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and about those Brits, I found it really interesting to know that all of the Royal Family's men are circumcised, and it's not done medically as in the USA, it's done by a Rabbi.

_at_ Quartermaster

>done in Ukraine

That was done by the USA. One of the primary architects of it was Victoria Nuland. She's Jewish, in case you were wondering.

Rurik , June 18, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT

But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews" instead?

no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles

And I say worst, because at least the Jews are doing what they consider to be 'best for the Jews', as they foment war, and loot the US treasury of billions of dollars every year to benefit their tribe.

Whereas the Gentile neocons are serving the Jewish supremacists at the direct of their own tribe and nation.

Scum like Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, George Will, the entire membership of the GOP in good standing with 'conservative Inc., Paul Ryan deserves a mention of his own, John McCain and Lindsey, and all the rest of the rotten neocon Gentiles, who're far, far worse human beings than Max Boot or William Kristol.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
@Rurik

no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles

Bingo! It is this self-evident and simple fact which many are afraid to face.

Rurik , June 18, 2018 at 3:08 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

this is perhaps the most contemptible man alive. (even possibly edging out McCain!)

listen how at 1:38 -- 1:42 he advocates taking out all of Syria's defenses, which would of course lead to the utter destabilization and ultimate carving up of Syria.

what this POS doesn't mention is that he, (and Dick Cheney and other Gentile scum) are on the strategic board of Genie Energy, which is poised to make trillions of dollars pumping oil out of Syria's Golan Heights. Which today is universally considered Syrian territory. But if Assad falls, then that all changes in a heartbeat.

also look at him at 51 seconds in, drooling over the planned destruction of Lebanon by the ZUS.

here he admits that he's an investor in 'energy and national security matters'

can you imagine a rich man advocating for the slaughter of untold innocents, including American service men and women, in order to illegally and immorally steal a nations territory so that he could profit by it with a few shekels more?

There aren't words..

He also was part of John McCain's presidential campaign.

The Jewish neocons are babes in the woods when it comes to the raw, treasonous evil of men like Woolsey.

youp , June 24, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
All of the verbage to tell us what we already know? That the alliance between the soft neoliberal, the media and the neocons is all about the Jewish supremacist agenda.

That is to use the might of the US against those who oppose the plan for Greater Israel to dominate the world thru endless wars and financial manipulation.

To destroy the entire Middle East to steal land, to control the political process in ALL the countries on Earth particularly the West.

Look at the fake media ownership, the journalists, the "comics" , the sports owners, academia. All jewish controlled and financed.
Putin is in the way. He's lucky to be alive still.

[Jul 06, 2018] Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State

Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. that's why Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains in propaganda and Hollywood movies.
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT

To me it is all quite simple. FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain. Stalin had other ideas.

Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in my view. Deep State still tries to impose this world government.

Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons are back'.

Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.

The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingness to realise that it could no longer maintain the empire. This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standards became too expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.

Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half. What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria. Alas, seldom in history did reason rule. If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.


Parbes , June 14, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT

The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world, but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.

Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.

Jake , June 14, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."

And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.

The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.

That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and World War 2.

What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.

But the original alliance is the same.

You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon problem without also solving the WASP problem.

DESERT FOX , June 14, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since 1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.

Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist communists.

The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Jake

From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.

Cyrano , June 14, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25 years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence" budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's their incompetence.
AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 6:51 pm GMT
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading. Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse "righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right" and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot and resent being thwarted from stealing even more.

Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.

redmudhooch , June 14, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best. Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria

Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-14/russia-warns-credible-information-impending-staged-chemical-attack-syria

White House Tied to Terrorists, Trump Authorizes $6.6M in Aid to White Helmets

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/14/white-house-tied-to-terrorists-trump-authorizes-6-6m-in-aid-to-white-helmets/

Starvation Holocaust in Yemen.

Yemen – The Starvation Siege Has Begun

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/06/the-starvation-siege-on-yemen-has-begun.html#more

By the time the American people realize that the war on terror was designed for them to be the final victim, it will be too late.

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Rurik

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

See comment 51:

The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.

some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white men), and the working class is languishing.

It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way, profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them that are being exploited.

The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey

no argument there!

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.

India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places) are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those respective lands.

Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their countries are reduced to shitholes.

If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India, then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.

As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi Arabia, respectively.

The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal hatred.

It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.

It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like the last Zio-century.

That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation behind the wars.

The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of pure, raw, insatiable greed.

Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.

The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two pillars of Satanic iniquity.

I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.

This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet look at how they abase themselves

[Jul 06, 2018] Geopolitical geo-economic challenges that the US West faces compels even good old-fashioned Anglo-Imperialists to say nasty things about Russia.

Notable quotes:
"... "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." ..."
"... Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a month later. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Erebus , June 15, 2018 at 9:26 am GMT

The personal viciousness of the Neocons' attacks on Putin and Russia may have something to do with ancient memories (however false they may be), but the geopolitical & geo-economic challenges that the US & West faces compels even good old-fashioned Anglo-Imperialists to say nasty things about Russia.

Since Putin came to power, Russia has been working the Plan. Its strategic objectives are to rejuvenate and consolidate the "Russian World" in Mackinder's Heartland, and from there to leverage its enormous geographical size & natural resource base to become the central power on the Eurasian continent. It's unique position culturally and geographically allows it to aspire to being the Grand Arbiter of Eurasian affairs, the only nation able to link the two ends of the continent geographically, economically and culturally.

When Wolfowitz wrote his now infamous words

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

he was channelling Mackinder who said

who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.

Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a month later.

The manner of the Wolfowitz Doctrine's emergence was a harbinger of the sort of half-assed attempt at empire the US embarked on. When it comes to Empire building, one is well advised to either Go Big, or Go Home. In the event, stretching its half-baked, incoherent doctrines to the breaking point, a series of inevitable fiascos followed and what we're seeing now is the last desperate attempts to keep its satraps onside by bamboozling their publics and making it difficult for clear sighted politicians to lead their countries away from the increasingly loud sucking sound coming out of Washington. As even that tactic is now failing, the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.

DanFromCt , June 15, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
@Rurik

Exactly. "Elites" are doing it. They own Hollywood, too. Republicans like Trump, Ryan, Graham aren't groveling before organized Int'l Jewry when they take orders from "billionaires," not at all. It's Chamber of Commerce nerds they secretly answer to, you see, not Int'l Jewry's Wall Street and Fed, whose business is tricking a profit from honest American labor wherever it's found, while (apparently for laughs) calling this extortion the efficient allocation of scarce financial resources. It's all so farcically obvious at this point yet Conservatism Inc is telling us it's all MAGA magic. Have to love this new face of Conservatism Inc, too -- a fruitcake whose sexuality derives from an obsession with male defecation to the extent his kind ingest feces and genital excreta and call it luv. Nonetheless, the CUFIs will be sending their sons to die and lose their limbs to turn the ME into one big Tel Aviv and in the process leave poor Moloch seeming like Mickey Mouse in comparison.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Erebus

the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.

US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option, unless one wants to start a global war. But I in general agree with your thesis.

EliteCommInc. , June 15, 2018 at 3:30 pm GMT
@anonymous

laughing -- you forgot russian gangs, italian gangs, irish gangs, polish gangs, corrupt law enforcement, etc, etc . . . .

I don't have any unique beef with Russia. I think is it is great that they no longer outlaw acknowledging that god exists.

AriusArmenian , June 15, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
Many liberals and progressives walked straight into a Russophobia trap initiated by the CIA.

And there they remain.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Rurik

Yes, Stalin was not Jewish, but what would you say was the Jewish role (if any) with the Bolshevik revolution (and the Holodomor and the rest of the horrors visited upon Russia and beyond, -as described by Solzhenitsyn- by Jewish finance, intrigue, treachery and genocidal villainy)?

Look first at the list of first Sovnarkom, for starters. Jewish finance and interests were important but only, again, as part of the puzzle. I do not consider Solzhenitsyn a good writer, even less a competent Russia historian, not to mention him being a complete amateur in any affairs pertaining defining military and political factors which led to two Russian Revolutions (in fact, three, once 1905 is considered). So, I am not interested in discussing the work of falsifiers.

Rurik , June 15, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Look first at the list of first Sovnarkom, for starters.

Anonymous [144] Disclaimer , June 15, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

You didn't answer his question:

If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?

The ongoing White Goyim Genocide project is proof positive that the Tribe is holding the reigns. Our own gentile "elites" are getting played into this suicide just like everyone else. Only the lies differ. They don't know that their seat of "power" is at the kiddie table and that it has an expiration date.

Rurik , June 15, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians.

obviously

In fact, it is infinitely more complex.

I've delved a bit into it. Read some books and such. But my education is always incomplete, and I'm an eternal student.

But if you want to view it as one unstoppable Jewish juggernaut against Christ-loving Russians, who am I to suggest to you otherwise.

naw, that's not how I see it.

The reason I bring up Jews is because I see them as often times bad actors that are causing dire problems right now, today, in this world. And menacing things I value, like peace, when peace is practicable.

When you talk about the infinite complexity of Russia's history, so too is that history tied to her neighbors, and Ukraine's history as well. (I suspect you know where I'm going with this ; )

So what some very clever and sinister people might do, is use that history and certain fault lines in the Russian and Ukrainian narratives, to foist strife and death and misery and war. You see?

Now you may say that Poroshenko is not a Jew, and as far as I know, that's right, (or not, I don't really know or care), but what I do know, and do care about, is the way neocon Jews (and goyim stooges) in my country have cynically used those historic fault lines to foment strife and war.

The way I see contemporary Russian history is one that following the collapse of the SU, Russia was looted during Yeltin's drunken reign by Rothschild agents known as the "Russian" oligarchs, (a few of which seem to have been actual ethnic Russians), and from there how Putin heroically wrested the destiny of Russia from these bad actors.

Then it was on to a bright future, except then Putin grew alarmed by what he saw happening to Libya, to be followed by Syria and what was it Gen. Clark said.., seven other countries?

So he put the kibosh in Syria's destabilization, and by doing so, earned the wrath of the Zionists.

Whereupon neocon Jews like Nuland installed Jews like Yatz in a coup that here in the ZUS they called "democracy".

The reason ((they)) did that, was to stick a pointed stick into the Russian bear, for defying ((their)) agenda in the greater Levant.

That's why they blamed Putin for MH17.

That's (probably) why they lowered the price of oil, to harm Putin (and Venezuela and others)

That's why our media are 24/7, 365 screeching that PUTIN IS HITLER!!!

Because, as far as I can tell, it is Putin that is the only resistance to whatever Bibi wants.

Because what I can tell you, is that Russia or no Russia, Bibi gets what ever he wants from "our" fecal government, always.

And so because of this dire paradigm, I do sometimes mention that it is Jewish supremacists that are foisting these wars. And causing great strife between Russia and the rest of the world.

I don't fulminate about Jewish supremacists because they stole my twinkle, no.

I talk about Zionist intrigue because that is exactly why the world is demanding that Putin return Crimea. And pay for the deaths on MH17, and why thousands have died in Donbas, etc..

These things didn't happen in a vacuum. There are actors involved, and geopolitics, and Machiavellian intrigues and machinations that should be exposed IMHO.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 6:29 pm GMT
@Anonymous

You didn't answer his question:

If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?

Western Liberalism doesn't have Jewish roots, unless one wants to associate capitalism with Jews only, which is not the case. This liberalism is flesh and blood of the Enlightenment and Europe's current problems have roots in this liberalism, together with the post-WW II cultural shock. It is also rooted in the United States emerging from this war unscathed. So, no it is not just the tribe, it is the whole clockwork of Western Civilization and its leader, the United States, which drives it into the gutter. Jews here are just for the ride and chutzpa–US and Jews were created for each-other. "Rothschild's Fed" in this case but one of many institutions which was created to enrich a rather substantial (to put it mildly) American strata of radically not-Jewish waspies who are now trying to find any justification (and excuses) for them screwing their own country into the increasingly grim future. Per tribe, ask yourself a question WHO owns this site and who allows, including very many openly mental people, to freely and openly express their opinions? Is Ron Unz, who is a real cultural American asset (even though I do not always agree with him) a tribe or not? Guess who is the most vocal and courageous fighter against anti-Russian madness in US? Professor Stephen Cohen, is he a tribe?

Here is a great British historian for ya:

"This swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to exploit the empire were not owing to some inevitable senescent process of history .That cause was a political doctrine .The doctrine was liberalism, which criticized and finally demolished the traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and asserted instead the primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws .It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power .Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting "

"The Collapse Of British Power", Correlli Barnett. William Morrow & Company, Inc. New York, 1972. Page 91.

Now ask yourself a question–IS the United States a nation-state?

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 11:15 pm GMT
@Rurik

The liberalism of the Enlightenment meant that we should all use our rationality to question the dogmas (and the leaders) of the day, and put them to the test of reason. That's why it's also known as the Age of Reason.

You obviously intent on ignoring economics of the issue and transition from one mode of production to another. It was this thing which predetermined all others. I do have 1929 (IIRC) version of Paine's Age of Reason.

Erebus , June 16, 2018 at 2:25 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option

I know, and should probably have made it clearer that when faced with that decision, the US will have to go home. The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits of the box they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the world as it is and will be.

Madeleine Albright's famous question to Gen. Powell 'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' can now be re-worded to ask "What's the point of having this enormous military edifice and expenditure if it isn't superb, or even effective?" The answer is that there is no point. Much of it can be jettisoned without affecting the US' real strategic situation, and almost all of it if its mandate were to be shrunk to defence of its homeland and close allies.

The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home". I can't even imagine how they're gonna do this in an organized way, but it's in everybody's interest that it happens as smoothly as possible. That those two seem to have built a professional rapport and even understanding is heartening.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 16, 2018 at 4:00 am GMT
@Erebus

The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home"

Most likely, at least Dunford, unlike most of US establishment is professional. Look up Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:

http://actualcomment.ru/tak-nachinayutsya-voyny-1806150926.html

Google translate should help.

Meanwhile, Russia since March 31 this year got rid off 50% of her US treasuries–today's news.

https://ria.ru/economy/20180616/1522835784.html

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Frankly, I always read Rostislav Ischenko with interest. After all, he worked for the Ukrainian government, including Ukrainian Foreign Affairs ministry, until 2014, when it became abundantly clear that project "Ukraine" is an abject failure. He has a lot of inside knowledge, although he sometimes predicts as imminent things that happen a year or two after his predictions. But in most things he tends to be right.

RICHARD BRAVERMAN , June 17, 2018 at 2:13 am GMT
jumping the shark ...revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received .. For all your research can you not see a false flag, i.e. manufactured event for public consumption confused see Operation Gladio

[Jul 06, 2018] Sure, there are tens of millions of brain dead, so-called Christian Zionists, but their leaders are bought off with Jewish shekels.

Notable quotes:
"... No, the reason is due to some of the things that (a tiny percentage of very powerful) Jews are ultimately responsible for. Like dragging us into wars in the Middle East, for instance. ..."
"... Sure, there are tens of millions of brain dead, so-called Christian Zionists, but their leaders are bought off with Jewish shekels. The most famous of them, Jerry Falwell was given a Lear jet by the Israeli government. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rurik , June 15, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him

if he's a Christian, then how did he get Israeli citizenship?

13. UN Representative (Former) -- John Bolton

http://american3rdposition.com/us-politics-hold-ual-usisraeli-citizenship/

From what I understand, both of you guys hail from the former Soviet Union.

Yes, Stalin was not Jewish, but what would you say was the Jewish role (if any) with the Bolshevik revolution (and the Holodomor and the rest of the horrors visited upon Russia and beyond, -as described by Solzhenitsyn- by Jewish finance, intrigue, treachery and genocidal villainy)?

this is by now an iconic image

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/leon-trotsky-depicted-on-a-polish-propaganda-poster-as-bloodsoaked-picture-id566464833?s=612×612

was the fact that Trotsky was Jewish, and his victims Christian, of any consequence whatsoever?

The reason people like me lament Jewish supremacist Zionists, isn't out of irrational antipathy for Jews or your average Jewish dentist or whatever. I like most of the Jews I know.

No, the reason is due to some of the things that (a tiny percentage of very powerful) Jews are ultimately responsible for. Like dragging us into wars in the Middle East, for instance.

Like what we American tax payers are forced to fund and provide moral cover for in Palestine.

Sure, there are tens of millions of brain dead, so-called Christian Zionists, but their leaders are bought off with Jewish shekels. The most famous of them, Jerry Falwell was given a Lear jet by the Israeli government.

And perhaps most of all, is the Fed, a printing press that allows the world's most wealthy and powerful Jews to loan us our own money, at interest, and then use the financial power that the Fed provides them, to corrupt the rest of our institutions.

If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?

[Jul 06, 2018] Are there certain things that can't be questioned in a given society, without the risk of destruction of this society?

Sergey Krueger is wrong about questioning of gender roles. That comes from the necessity to to have an identity wedge during neoliberal period of the USA society.
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sergey Krieger , June 16, 2018 at 9:42 am GMT

@Rurik

Well, you put it yourself. Liberalism as is it was during the Enlightenment was questioning all dogmas and everything that is considered normal here we have a double aged sword. When and what you stop questioning and reasoning about logic of certain things.

Logically they started with kings and after all things were questioned they came now to roles of males and females, sex, gender and god forbids where this can takes us.

There are certain things that cannot be questioned for society to have a back bone. A moral and cultural one. Otherwise things turn the way they are now. There is nothing sacred and everything can be questioned and reasoned about.

[Jul 03, 2018] With some exceptions Putin practices "national neoliberalism" in Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Since the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. ..."
"... These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke). ..."
"... Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov June 29, 2018 at 7:36 pm GMT

Karlin,

The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.

If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for? ... Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that is a good thing .

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-07/putin-s-under-the-radar-nationalization-of-russia-s-private-banks

Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills, except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries, especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech--both events are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and political mostly--his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since 2014 is visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention that Russia, quoting even Wiki:

Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas of the economy.
Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land sales, resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries. Putin recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State got from 2008 collapse and from sanctions.

These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke).

Philip Owen , June 29, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT

The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example, it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "How can I help you? Do you want money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.

Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom?

Their behaviour is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for a competitive market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent another Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the whole process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court or make some high level examples?

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 29, 2018 at 9:11 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Rostek, run by Chemezov, whose main qualification is being buddies with Putin in 1980s East Germany, famous for passing off an unsuccessful and outdated Taiwanese manufactured and American designed device as an example of "Russian innovation" [at pilfering government money].

But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's kleptocratic chums are concerned. Fortunately, overall domestic economic policy (with said exceptions) is neoliberal, which rules out a Venezuelan scenario in Russia. That is a good thing.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 29, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's kleptocratic chums are concerned.

Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.

Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who only reinforce your condescending ignorance.

https://ria.ru/analytics/20180625/1523351567.html?referrer_block=index_only_ria_1

I guess we have an overwhelming empirical evidence supporting these claims, don't we?

[Jul 03, 2018] One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between 2015/2020. An extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, if you will, but this time with only one statesman participating in this conundrum, the president of the Russian Federation, H.E. Mr. V.V. Putin.

Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Daniel Rich , June 29, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT

@Isabella

@ Isabella,

I judge a wo/man not on his/her words, but his/her deeds. Suffice to say, the difference between Russia in 2000 and Russia today, speaks volumes all by itself and is fully self explanatory as well.

One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between 2015/2020. An extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, if you will, but this time with only one statesman participating in this conundrum, the president of the Russian Federation, H.E. Mr. V.V. Putin.

Much blood has been shed in Syria, including Russian, so it would be unfair to single out one particular country, but I know if it hand't been for Russia stepping up to the plate in 2015, the political landscape [in the M.E. and beyond] would be littered with the corpses of liberty, freedom and unity and the dust wouldn't settle down for decades to come.

The Russian military went in, turned the tide and most of the temporary influx is retreating back to the motherland as we speak. That's how a 'job' is done properly.

[Jul 03, 2018] Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere

Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 30, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT

@FKA Max

National identity in USSR was important. Well, it is always important and yes, there was latent antisemitism (or whatever it is called) in some spheres of Soviet life. Not as big, though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.

AnonFromTN , July 2, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere. Antisemitsm was by ~90% the myth created by these people. One example I know first-hand: in my year at the school of Biology in the best and most privileged Moscow State University about 20-25% of students were Jewish or half-Jewish, whereas Jews constituted 2-3% of the USSR population.

[Jul 03, 2018] No Fifth Column in the Kremlin Think again by The Saker

The problem is that there is no clear alternative to neoliberalism. Russian foreign policy is clearly anti-neoliberal. So in a way, Russia represent another example of National neoliberalism along with Trump "national neoliberalism".
Notable quotes:
"... I believe most of the confusing and seemingly contradictory actions of Putin can be explained if we assume Putin himself as a neo-liberal. It appears he genuinely believes that he can both retain Russian sovereignty and integrate with the west on a neo-liberal framework. My view is that his reluctance with purging Kremlin's 5th column operators come from his belief that their differences are not reconcilable and that a grand bargain with the western elites is possible where they would consider Russia's elites as equal partners. ..."
Jun 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Following the re-appointment of Medvedev and his more or less reshuffled government, the public opinion in Russia and abroad was split on whether this was a good sign of continuity and unity amongst the Russian leadership or whether this was a confirmation that there was a 5 th column inside the Kremlin working against President Putin and trying to impose neo-liberal and pro-western policies on the Russian people. Today I want to take a quick look at what is taking place inside Russia because I believe that the Russian foreign policy is still predominantly controlled by what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and that to detect the activities of the "Atlantic Integrationist" types we need to look at what is taking place inside Russia.

The Russian 5 th column and its typical operations

First, I want to begin by sharing with you a short video translated by the Saker Community of one of the most astute Russian analysts, Ruslan Ostashko, who wonders how it is that a rabidly pro-western and vociferously anti-Putin radio station named "Ekho Moskvy" manages not only to elude normal Russian legislation, but even gets money from the gaz giant Gazprom, which is majority owned by the Russian state. Ekho Moskvy is also so pro-Israeli that it has earned the nickname "Ekho Matsy" (Ekho Moskvy means "Echo of Moscow" whereas "Ekho Matsy" means "Echo of the Matzo"). Needless to say, that radio has the unwavering and total support of the US Embassy. It would not be an exaggeration to say Ekho Moskvy serves as in incubator for russophobic journalists and that most the liberal pro-western reporters in the Russian media have been, at one time or another, associated with this propaganda outfit. In spite of this or, more accurately, because of this, Ekho Moskvy has been bankrupt for quite a while already, and yet – it continues to exist. Just listen to Ostashko's explanations ( and make sure to press the 'cc' button to see the English language captions):

Interesting, no? The state giant Gazprom is doing all it can to keep Ekho Moskvy afloat and above the law. In fact, Gazprom has been financing Ekho Moskvy for years! According to the hyper-politically-correct Wikipedia , "As of 2005 Echo of Moscow was majority owned by Gazprom Media which holds 66% of its shares". If Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state, and Ekho Moskvy is majority owned by Gazprom, then does that not mean that Ekho Moskvy is basically financed by the Kremlin? The reality is even worse, as Ostashko point out, Ekho Moskvy is the most visible case, but there are are quite a few pro-western media outlets in Russia which are financed, directly and indirectly, by the Russian state.

So let me ask you a simple question: do you really think that Ostashko is better informed than the Russian authorities, including Putin himself?

Of course not! So what is going on here?

Before attempting to answer this question, let's look at another interesting news item from Russia, the recent article " Pension reform as a fifth column tool to overthrow Putin " (original title "About a fair pension system") by Mikhail Khazin translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard from the Stalker Zone blog (and cross-posted here and here ). Please read the full article as it sheds a very interesting light on what the Medvedev government has been up to since it was reappointed. What I want to quote here are Mikhail Khazin's conclusions: (emphasis added)

In other words, all of this reform is frank poppycock, a political joke aimed at destroying relations between the People (society) and the Authorities. The specific aim of this is to overthrow Putin, as our liberals are commanded to do by their senior partners from the "Western" global project . And it is precisely like this that we should treat this reform. It has no relation to economic reforms – neither good, nor bad. It not an economic reform, but a political plot! And it is from here that we have to proceed.

Having explained what is really going on, Khazin then goes on the openly state how such an operation is even possible:

Now concerning the media. It should be understood that at the end of the 90's-beginning of the 2000's practically all non-liberal media died. Completely. And of course, practically all non-liberal journalists definitely died (only a few dozen mastodons from the times of socialism remain). And the youth that grew from the faculty of journalism are in general totally liberal. They were a little bit suppressed in the middle of the 2000's, but after Medvedev's arrival to the president's post they again blossomed. But then the attack of the State on everything that doesn't reflect "the policies of the party and the government" began.

And then it so happened that now there are many "patriotic" publications in Russia that employ mainly liberal journalists. An enchanting sight. These journalists (in full accordance with the ideas of Lenin that they didn't read) see their main task as supporting "theirs" – i.e., liberal-financiers, Nemtsov, Navalny and, so on, and to sully the "bloody KayGeeBee"! And it is this that they are involved in, meaning that, propagandising as much as possible the policies of the government, they optimally irritate the population by using Putin personally. There is just a need every time to act out some disgusting story (how an elderly man died on the way to the polyclinic or hospital, how children were taken away from a large family, how an official or a priest hit a pregnant woman and/or juvenile children with their chic car), to explain that this isn't just the result of the policies of the liberal power, but the concrete fault of the President, who put on their posts the very ministers and law enforcement officers who encourage all of this.

Amazing, no? This is an attempt to overthrow Putin and it is covered-up by the (pseudo) patriotic press. What about Putin himself? Why does he not take action? Khazin even explains that:

Of course, the President is guilty, first of all, because he understands that if he starts to cleanse this "Augean stable", then he will be obliged to shed blood , because they won't voluntarily give back their privileges . But the most important thing, and this is the essence: the liberal Russian elite today set for itself the political task of removing Putin. Why it decided to do this is an interesting question: if Putin himself and a liberal are flesh from flesh, then this task is stupid and senseless. Not to mention suicidal. But if he isn't a liberal (it is probably correct to say not a political liberal) then, of course, this activity makes sense . But at the same time, for purely propaganda reasons – because people hate liberals, there is a need to hang the label of political liberal on him.

Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled) faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes "liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like ( he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005 ) and the so-called "patriotic media" is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding blood.

ORDER IT NOW

But let us assume, for argument's sake, that Putin is really a liberal at heart, that he believes in " Washington Consensus " type of economics. Even if this was the case, surely he must be aware that 92% of Russians oppose this so-called "reform" . And while the President's spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, declared that Putin himself was not associated with this plan , the truth is that this process does also hurt his political image with the Russian people and political movements. As a direct result from these plans, the Communist Party of Russia is launching a referendum against this project while the "Just Russia" Party is now collecting signatures to dismiss the entire government . Clearly, a political struggle of monumental proportions is in the making and the traditionally rather lame internal opposition to Putin (I am talking about the major political movements and parties, not tiny CIA-supported and/or Soros-funded "NGOs") is now transforming itself into a much more determined kind of opposition. I predicted that about a month ago when I wrote that:

"it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition"

Those who vehemently denied that there as a real 5 th column problem inside the Kremlin are going to have a painful wake-up call when they realize that thanks to the actions of these "liberals" a patriotic opposition is gradually emerging, not so much against Putin himself as against the policies of the Medvedev government. Why not against Putin?

Because most Russian instinctively feel what is going on and understand not only the anti-Putin dynamics at work, but also how and why this situation was created. Furthermore, unlike most westerners, most Russians remember what took place in the crucial and formative 1990s.

The historical roots of the problem (very rough summary)

It all began in the late 1980s when the Soviet elites realized that they were losing control of the situation and that something had to be done. To really summarize what they did, I would say that these elites first broke up the country into 15 individual fiefdoms each run by gang/clan composed of these Soviet elites, then they mercilessly grabbed everything of any value, became overnight billionaires and concealed their money in the West. Being fabulously rich in a completely ruined country gave them fantastic political power and influence to further exploit and rob the country of all its resources. Russia herself (and the other 14 ex-Soviet republics) suffered an unspeakable nightmare comparable to a major war and by the 1990s Russia almost broke-up into many more even smaller pieces (Chechnia, Tatarstan, etc.). By then, Russia was subserviently executing all the economic policies recommended by a myriad of US 'advisors' (hundreds of them with offices inside the offices of many key ministries and various state agencies, just like today in the Ukraine), she adopted a Constitution drafted by pro-US elements and all the key positions in the state were occupied by what I can only call western agents. At the very top, President Eltisn was mostly drunk while the country was run by 7 bankers the so-called "oligarchs" (6 of which were Jews): the " Semibankirshchina ".

This is the time when the Russian security services successfully tricked these oligarchs into believing that Putin, who has a law degree and who had worked for the (very liberal) Mayor of Saint Petersburg (Anatolii Sobchack) was just a petty bureaucrat who would restore a semblance of order while not presenting any real threat to the oligarchs. The ploy worked, but the business elites demanded that "their" guy, Medvedev, be put in charge of the government so as to preserve their interests. What they overlooked was two things: Putin was a truly brilliant officer of the very elite First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence) of the KGB and a real patriot. Furthermore, the Constitution which was passed to support the Eltsin regime could now be used by Putin. But more than anything else, they never predicted that a little guy in an ill-fitting suit would transform himself into one of the most popular leaders on the planet. As I have written many times, while the initial power base of Putin was in the security services and the armed forces and while his legal authority stems from the Constitution, is real power comes from the immense support he has from the Russian people who, for the first time in very long time felt that the man at the top truly represented their interests.

Putin then did what Donald Trump could have done as soon as he entered the White House: he cleaned house. He began by immediately tackling the oligarchs, he put an end to the Semibankirshchina , and he stopped the massive export of money and resources out of Russia. The then proceeded to rebuilt the "vertical of power" (the Kremlin's control over the country) and began rebuilding all of Russia from the foundations (regions) up. But while Putin was tremendously successful, he simply could not fight on all the fronts and the same time and win.

Truth be told, he did eventually win most of the battles which he chose to fight, but some battles he simply could not wage not because of a lack of courage or will on his part, but because the objective reality is that Putin inherited and extremely bad system fully controlled by some extremely dangerous foes . Remember the words of Khazin above: " if he starts to cleanse this "Augean stable", then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won't voluntarily give back their privileges". So, in a typically Putin fashion, he made a number of deals.

For example, those oligarchs who agreed to stop meddling in Russian politics and who would, from now on, pay taxes and generally abide by the law were not be jailed or expropriated: those who got the message were allowed to continue to work as normal businessmen (Oleg Deripaska) and those who did not were either jailed or exiled (Khodorkovski, Berezovski). But if we look just below the level of these well-known and notorious oligarchs, what we find as a much deeper "swamp" (to use the US expression): an entire class of people who made their fortunes in the 1990s, who are now extremely influential and control most of the key positions in the economy, finance and business and who absolutely hate and fear Putin. They even have their agents inside the armed forces and security services because their weapon of choice is, of course, corruption and influence. And, of course, they have people representing their interests inside the Russian government: pretty much the entire "economic block" of the Medvedev government.

Is it really any surprise at all that these people also have their paid representatives inside the Russian media, including the so-called "pro-Russian" or "patriotic" media? (I have been warning about this since at least 2015)

Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money and big financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or obfuscate some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media backing WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid, rabidly pro-Israeli propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Satanovsky, Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.

And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: "there is no 5 th column in Russia!! None!! Never!!"

This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the US which denies the existence of a "deep state" or the US "Israel Lobby".

And yet, many (most?) people in the US and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that they are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them.

Putin's options and possible outcomes

Sadly, in the US, Trump proved to be a disaster who totally caved in to the Neocons and their demands. In Russia, the situation is far more complex. So far, Putin has very skillfully avoided associating himself with the Atlantic Integrationists. Furthermore, the biggest crises of the past decade or so were all associated with foreign policy issues and those are still controlled by the Eurasian Sovereignists. Finally, while the Russian government clearly committed some mistakes or promoted some unpopular policies (such has healthcare reform for example), they also had their undeniable successes. As for Putin, he continued to consolidate his power and he gradually removed some of the most notorious individuals from their positions. In theory, Putin could probably have most top Atlantic Integrationists arrested on corruption charges, but short of engaging in a massive and bloody purge, he cannot get rid of an entire social class which is not only large but powerful.

Some of my contacts in Russia expected a purge of Atlantic Integrationists right after the election, the logic here was "enough is enough" and that once Putin got a strong mandate from the people, he would finally kick Medvedev and his gang out of the Kremlin and replace them with popular patriots. That obviously did not happen. But if this pension reform program continues to further trigger protests or if a major war blows up in the Middle-East or in the Ukraine, then the pro-western forces inside the Kremlin will come under great pressure to further yield control of the country to Eurasian Sovereignists.

Putin is an exceedingly patient man and, at least so far, he won most, if not all, of his battles. I don't believe that anybody can predict for sure how things will play out, but what is certain is that trying to understand Russia without being aware of the internal conflicts and the interests groups fighting for power is futile. In her 1000 year long history, internal enemies have always been far more dangerous for Russia than external ones. This is unlikely to change in the future.


mikkkkas , June 29, 2018 at 8:36 am GMT

Since "The Saker" does not approve difference of opinion or dissent on his own site i will post my response here.

This is yet another episode of "doom & gloom" articles of his in a series that started almost a year ago. If you have read one, you have read them all. Since then a quite 180 degree different and depression-ridden "The Saker" or whatever is hiding under that name has produced articles to the effect that "Putin has surrendered", "the end is nigh" or "it's all over". Hi's sudden embrace of "Paul Craig Roberts" views of all things Russian further confirms that.

The content aren't necessarily wrong and incorrect but the message is very far from what the author initially conveyed. The impression is now that things definitely doesn't bode well for Russia and there's nothing Russians or anyone can do about it, move on. "The Saker" is now using the encouraging confidence he built up with his "community",that has grown significantly over the years, to tear it apart it seems.

Where have we seen that before?

Isabella , June 29, 2018 at 8:48 am GMT
President Putin has himself categorically stated that "there is no such thing as any "5th column". When asked about the presence of Kudrin and a few like him, VP said, "it's useful to hear different points of view, but to suggest they are some sort of 5th column is nonsense"
I think I would trust his word – he has never been known to lie and he has no reason to do so.
He gave his reasons for retaining Medvedev plus a few others – good solid rational reasons. No-body in Russia is doubting them.
Can it be forgotten by this writer, that Medvedev is an appointed position – by the President. Putin can remove him in an instant any time he likes: he holds the strings, and is under thrall to no-one.
As for the article the writer refers to in "The Saker", the provenance of the authors shows how much value to put on it.
The writer – not mentioned here – is one Vadim Potapenko who gives details of himself as living in Cyprus, and working as a Development Manager – Slotegrator : Gambling & Casinos.!!
What a young man working in the ethically questionable world of casinos knows about pension reform and retirement age needs I dont know. He does deal in risk analysis of simplistic systems I guess, but an expert in the complexities of Government policy he can't be.
The second author is Mikhail Khazin – a man who claims to an economist and publicist, and states that "Putin is following the ideas of Andropov. They didn t' work then and they dont now: Putin by his very personality has polarised views in Russia, because some love him and some hate him"
This about a President with an 80% approval rating, a 77% voter return rate, and who is so far from any USSR person it's unbelievable. The mans' complete inability to understand the first thing about Putin, who he is, what he believes in, and the route he is following shows he is the last person whose views should be even listened to.
This brings me to the finale – more and more it seems "The Saker" wants people to believe that there are dark forces at work in the Kremlin, that Putin is either too weak and stupid to deal with them or even worse, is working in with them. In other words, he effects to support the Russian President but calls him a weakling or a traitor!!
Better to read work by qualified people and investigate Russia for yourself – dont be led into thinking Russia would be a cakewalk for anyone thinking of invading and making war on her, because she has a weak and divided leadership. She doesn't have – and waging war on Russia would have only one end, and it's not pretty.
kemerd , June 29, 2018 at 3:54 pm GMT
I believe most of the confusing and seemingly contradictory actions of Putin can be explained if we assume Putin himself as a neo-liberal. It appears he genuinely believes that he can both retain Russian sovereignty and integrate with the west on a neo-liberal framework. My view is that his reluctance with purging Kremlin's 5th column operators come from his belief that their differences are not reconcilable and that a grand bargain with the western elites is possible where they would consider Russia's elites as equal partners.

I think this is not a sustainable position, even if western elites were willing to play ball with Putin and Russia's elites. Because in a neo-liberal world nations cannot retain their sovereignty and that an international cabal of ultra-rich treat the peoples of the world as properties of their own. The best that could have happened would be that Russian elites would be partying with their western fellow billionaires on the corpses of the poor nations of the world. That part, I am convinced, is not acceptable for Putin (i.e. giving up sovereignty in return for a seat on the dinner table but I have serious doubts about anti-imperialism part)

Fortunately for Russia, the same cabal still cannot get over the fact that they lost the opportunity to rape Russia ad infinitum and still looking for holes in the Russian resolve. This will force Russia to take a clear anti-imperialist stand sooner or later, and on a war footing will have to purge all of the (would be) collaborators.

On a second note, it is indeed possible that Putin might have decided to postpone the decision for the purge after the world cup but I will not believe before I see Medvedev and Nabiullina be fired.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 29, 2018 at 5:56 pm GMT

Of course not! So what is going on here?

The Kremlin is financing the craziest knee-jerk Russophobes to discredit liberalism. The two exist in a comfy symbiotic relationship. What is so difficult about that?

Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled) faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes "liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called "patriotic media" is covering it all up.

The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.

If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for?

At least, that's would I'd be asking – if I was the sort to rail against neoliberal fifth columns.

Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that is a good thing .

Even if this was the case, surely he must be aware that 92% of Russians oppose this so-called "reform".

Where on Earth do people support raising the pension age? Thankfully, many countries (including Russia) have safeguards against demotic idiocy.

As a direct result from these plans, the Communist Party of Russia is launching a referendum against this project while the "Just Russia" Party is now collecting signatures to dismiss the entire government.

The business elites are not in a position to demand anything. Medvedev is there as a whipping boy to protect Putin's ratings. He is very good at that, and that, too, is a good thing.

This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.

The author's anti-Israel crusade is not Russia's. That Russia is not to Iran, Palestine, or Hezbollah what the US is to Israel (a slavish sponsor) is also a good thing.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 29, 2018 at 7:36 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Karlin,

The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for? Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that is a good thing .

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-07/putin-s-under-the-radar-nationalization-of-russia-s-private-banks

Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills, except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries, especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech–both events are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and political mostly–his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since 2014 is visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention that Russia, quoting even Wiki:

Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas of the economy.

Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land sales, resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries. Putin recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State got from 2008 collapse and from sanctions. These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke).

FKA Max , Website June 29, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT

At the very top, President Eltisn was mostly drunk while the country was run by 7 bankers the so-called "oligarchs" ( 6 of which were Jews ): the "Semibankirshchina".

I think Putin today is in a similar situation as Stalin was in the late 1940s regarding Jewish political activism and assertiveness, etc.

Despite Stalin's willingness to support Israel early on, various historians suppose that antisemitism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was motivated by Stalin's possible perception of Jews as a potential "fifth column" in light of a pro-Western Israel in the Middle East.
[...]
I think increasing the Jewish (and general) death toll in World War II and decreasing the "official" Jewish population of the Soviet Union served two purposes for Stalin.

Firstly, for propaganda purposes against the Germans higher death tolls were useful, and secondly lower "official" numbers of Jews in the Soviet Union were likely intended to discourage and prevent Jewish empowerment and organizing
[...]
Jeffrey Veidlinger writes that "By October 1948, it was obvious that Mikhoels was by no means the sole advocate of Zionism among Soviet Jews. The revival of Jewish cultural expression during the war had fostered a general sense of boldness among the Jewish masses.

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/#comment-2396013

This is slightly off-topic, but I just commented on this subject matter in another comments thread, which has to do with the fact that many more persons of Jewish origin live in Russia and the former Soviet states than is commonly known or reported:

Here the original in Russian: http://tavrio.ru/index.php/politics/nazpol/42-skolko-evreev-pf Archived link: http://archive.is/EDYeZ
[...]
And I believe that today, after a great aliyah, the number of halachic Jews in the countries of the former USSR is about four million. And six million more are those who know about their Jewish origin.
[...]
Half of the top 25 billionaires in Russia, I believe, come from a Jewish background. I know strong Jewish ethnic and religious networking, nepotism, etc. exists, but to achieve such a high billionaire density even the Jewish population has to be at least 2% of the Russian population (about 3 million at least out of the 150 million Russian population) like it is the case in the U.S. (about 6 million Jews out of a 300 million U.S. population).

Not just 400,000 (which would be 0.3% of the Russian population) or even lower estimates, like some sources claim. Wikipedia for example puts the number of Jews in Russia, at the moment, at a laughable: 179,500
[...]
, which would be about o.15% of the Russian population, but Jews are half of the top 25 billionaires in Russia?

Something does not quite compute here, to put it mildly

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/#comment-2394694

Putin might know how many Jews really died in the Holocaust and in World War II, and this is his way of telegraphing it and signalling to the Jewish Russian community that they should not get too uppity and bold?

'Holocaust on ice' dance by wife of Putin official causes uproar

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/27/wife-of-putin-official-performs-in-concentration-camp-ice-dance

Holocaust-themed ice dance sparks outrage

Verymuchalive , June 29, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Putin has ensured that foreign interests have been prevented from taking over vital Russian industries such as Oil,Gas, Minerals, Banking and Defence. At best, foreign companies can only get limited concessions under conditions that suit the Russian State, eg BP.
Putin isn't a Neoliberal, he's a pragmatist. This is a very good thing.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 29, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's kleptocratic chums are concerned.

Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.

Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who only reinforce your condescending ignorance.

https://ria.ru/analytics/20180625/1523351567.html?referrer_block=index_only_ria_1

I guess we have an overwhelming empirical evidence supporting these claims, don't we?

Philip Owen , June 29, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example, it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "how can I help you? Do you want money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.

Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? Their behaviour is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for a competitive market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent another Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the whole process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court or make some high level examples?

Daniel Rich , June 29, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@Isabella

@ Isabella,

I judge a wo/man not on his/her words, but his/her deeds. Suffice to say, the difference between Russia in 2000 and Russia today, speaks volumes all by itself and is fully self explanatory as well.

One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between 2015/2020. An extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, if you will, but this time with only one statesman participating in this conundrum, the president of the Russian Federation, H.E. Mr. V.V. Putin.

Much blood has been shed in Syria, including Russian, so it would be unfair to single out one particular country, but I know if it hand't been for Russia stepping up to the plate in 2015, the political landscape [in the M.E. and beyond] would be littered with the corpses of liberty, freedom and unity and the dust wouldn't settle down for decades to come.

The Russian military went in, turned the tide and most of the temporary influx is retreating back to the motherland as we speak. That's how a 'job' is done properly.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 30, 2018 at 12:39 am GMT
@Philip Owen

Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court or make some high level examples?

Read by letters: F-S-B (Operational Technical Departments–Operativno-Technicheskie Otdely). And then there is always G(R)U. Sure, those boys such as Ulyukaev or Kudrin who saw so "much" in their lives are real "contenders". I am sure Naryshkin knows what color of stool Siluanov is having every day. The same goes for Kudrin. But he is a smart boy–he knows the routine. You obviously missed the revelation of the actual Putin's position in KGB/SVR–it was all over Russia's TV. Other than that–I agree, it is a "target rich" environment and yes, Kudrin is perfect for this job.

Isabella , June 30, 2018 at 1:09 am GMT
@Daniel Rich

Hi Daniel – so good to see you again, I was wondering recently where you might be.

I agree with you – the "proof of the pudding" says it all. One has only to look at the last 18 years, at where Russia and Russians were back then, and look at her now, all under Putins' direction and overall management. You do that, then read this sort of stuff and wonder just what is going on in some people's minds. It makes less than no sense – which means one has to start looking at premises one would not like to think about.
As for expecting some publicist who thinks Putin is a follower of Andropov as a person worth printing and quoting – words fail me.
Good to hear from you Daniel – take care mi amigo.

Isabella , June 30, 2018 at 1:16 am GMT
@mikkkkas

"Since "The Saker" does not approve difference of opinion or dissent on his own site i will post my response here."

Exactly what brought me here to comment, not on The Saker's own site.
Because I am being critical of the articles' thesis, and because I have criticised the provenance of the two writers of the article on pension reform, I knew it would not be published on his site.
I even had a comment I made, refusing to accept a pathetic reference for supposedly "proving" that V.V. promised to never raise the retirement age, redacted. There's an unfortunate aspect to the Saker site that puts one off making useful critical comment – the "mods" can redact your work – or even ditch the entire piece – and leave a vague comment insulting to your own probity, leaving it looking as though you are some foul mouthed abuser, yet because you wont be published you can't defend yourself.

I do have to commend "Unz" for it's freedom of expression.
Oh – I agree with your take on the article too – so much of Saker has become a doom laden cry that denigrates and decries Putin – which seems very odd.

FKA Max , Website June 30, 2018 at 1:27 am GMT
@FKA Max

Some more background information on how the Soviet internal passport registration system worked, for anyone interested:

In the Soviet Union, when someone with parents of two nationalities received identity papers at age 16, he could pick which nationality to list. A child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother could put down "Jew [ or not ]." The religious principle of matrilineal descent was irrelevant.
[...]
Persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union started with a policy Joseph Stalin initiated in 1937. Every Soviet citizen was required to carry an internal passport and under "nationality," Jews were required to list "Jewish." Beckerman says this policy actually may have been a tough decision for Stalin.

"On the one hand, he followed this Leninist principle [that] all Soviet citizens should just melt into one general populace that doesn't have any distinctions for nationality," he says. " But on the other hand, he wanted to control this population and Jews always had kind of a strange place in the Russian society psyche, so he wanted to know who the Jews were. "

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/#comment-2395070

here:

Data on the offspring of mixed couples in the Soviet Union show that they tended formally to affiliate with the nationality of the non-Jewish parent.

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/#comment-2394826

and here:

Following the firsthand account of discrimination experienced by Jews in the Soviet Union due to having their "nationality" registered as Jewish in their internal passports. I believe this lends credence to the assumption that most (half-)Jews with just one Jewish parent likely opted to be identified/registered by the nationality of their non-Jewish parent, and further strengthens my hypothesis that Holocaust and Jewish World War II casualties might have been significantly lower than what is generally accepted by mainstream and anti-revisionist Holocaust and World War II historians and researchers

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/#comment-2395136

Soviet Passport Line #5

mikkkkas , June 30, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
@Isabella

Nailed it, well done!

Anon [172] Disclaimer , June 30, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 30, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT

@FKA Max

National identity in USSR was important. Well, it is always important and yes, there was latent antisemitism (or whatever it is called) in some spheres of Soviet life. Not as big, though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 30, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT
@FKA Max

So what was the result of this policy?

Did anybody get shafted ? Did anybody lose ?

FKA Max , Website June 30, 2018 at 7:17 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Not as big, though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.

Hahahaha I agree

Do you happen to know if Andrey Illarionov comes from a Jewish background? I know he is a dissident now, but I'm not sure whether he is ethnically Jewish or not.

Auschwitz joke angers Jewish groups

Andrei Illarionov, an economic adviser to the president, made the comparison during a visit to St Petersburg. He has recommended that Russia should not sign the protocol.
[...]
"Then we realised Gosplan was much more humane and we ought to call the Kyoto Protocol an international gulag. In the Gulag, though, you got the same ration daily and it didn't get smaller day by day. In the end, we had to call the Kyoto Protocol an international Auschwitz."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1459350/Auschwitz-joke-angers-Jewish-groups.html

ATBOTL , June 30, 2018 at 8:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

What is this dispensationalist neocon garbage? Have Freepers found Unz?

Philip Owen , June 30, 2018 at 11:48 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

I missed the revelation. I tend to focus on business rather than politics. Expert is the only journal I try to read regularly. (I am not fluent but I can usually manage if I focus).

jilles dykstra , July 1, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
Soros's newspaper still appears in Russia.
A few days after MH17 the front page text something like 'Sorry, Netherlands', in Dutch.
Just imagine a few days after Sept 11 a USA newspaper with headlines, something like 'sorry, we had to kill a few thousand Americans in order te get an excuse for wars against Afghanistan and Iraq' ?
jilles dykstra , July 1, 2018 at 6:59 am GMT
@Daniel Rich

" One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between 2015/2020. "

You suppose WWIII will not come.
Hope you're right.
If not, there will be nobody left to realise anthing

mcohen , July 1, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT
After what happened in the groves at jisr al shughour russia stepped up and did what was right.in that time in the syrian war they stood the moral high ground.the rest is history.bear in mind that 100 km away live over million russians and that does not include cyprus.most support likud.
EOLAWKI , July 1, 2018 at 9:19 am GMT
Well spoken. Analysts like the Saker would have us believe that what is happening in Russia is not really happening but something else is happening – something hidden, something powerful, all-pervasive, eating away at Putin's power base and destroying him behind the scenes – like the john Birch Society – A communist under every bed! From what I can see, and I do not believe I am alone by any means, is that if there are dark forces at work in the Kremlin and elsewhere in the media for example, they are profoundly weak and ineffective in Russia at this point. And whilst they might exist, there is little outward evidence of their workings except the odd Navalny incident, or the constant drippings from Western oriented media like the Moscow Times. If you want to see the effects of a REAL, persistent, powerful, pervasive 5th column, you need look any further than the USA with its Zionist lobby and MIC influence on politics and policy. Or the EU with its incredibly powerful bureaucracy and its link to Soros and his ilk. Those are real 5th columns, and by comparison, Russia has little to worry about.

I have followed the Saker for years now, and I too have seen this gradual transformation from top notch analyst to conspiracy theorist. His website has become almost cult-like. He has a few 'moderators' who operate anonymously behind the scenes to filter out unflattering content – not just the crazy insults and freaks that websites like his attract, but honest content that seeks to criticise, sometimes sharply, his views. If you read the comment section, it reads like a religious cult at times, most comments prefaced by the seemingly obligatory preface like "Great analysis, Saker!" "Well said, Saker!" And always there are the comments both on the part of the Saker and his 'community' that praises that community for being 'special', unlike the rubbish of other sites, insightful, and more knowledgeable than others – heaping praise on themselves at the expense of other site with comments to the effect of "We should be proud that we are not like other sites.".

I fear the Saker has over time fallen prey to the old devil's trick of taking oneself too seriously. Someone who is constant the object of unquestioned praise can easily fall into that trap.

Isabella , July 1, 2018 at 9:27 am GMT
@mikkkkas

Thank you Mikkkkas.

Anon [335] Disclaimer , July 1, 2018 at 9:45 am GMT

quasi_verbatim , July 1, 2018 at 10:17 am GMT

Good to see that freedom of thought and freedom of expression is thriving in Russia. They have fortunately a long way to go in MSM herd-think before they achieve our oppressive anti-human intellectual conformity.

And good luck in overthrowing Putin.

Fatima Manoubia , July 1, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@Isabella

I agree in that presenting Mr. Putin and Russia as weak seems to encourage military action, or a coup, against it, just "NOW", when the US is trying ( or simply, pretending ) an intend of approach ..This has nothing to do with suppossed "depressive" mood of The Saker himself ..this is a plan .

Thus I agree with you both in the general tone and confussing meddley of articles at Saker´s site, and as well with your impression on the last "generation" of mods ( to my view part of the real staff of this project, The Saker ) who, not only were put in charge of getting rid ( by using the most dirty tricks ) from the genuine former regular commenters/moderators who had a very personal view on what a good moderation and avoiding of harsh censure was, but also have displayed a shameful dictatorial censure and editing which not only amputates genuine and legitimate oppinions but also, as you notice, try, at the same time, to discredit you as commenter for the rest, by implying you were being rude and offensive and moreover denying the right to make things clear by allowing you a response to such a clear outrage, according with most probably direct guidelines from the people who lead The Saker from behind .

This tactic, of obliterating your comment and answering you by implying that you were being offensive, ( and even denigrating ) towards somebody ( mainly the author/ owner of the site and/or his relatives, coleagues and friends ), is common with other sites, like Pat Lang´s SST. This is why I think these two sites are "closely" related .being their paterns so similar also both have military ( more concretely counterintelligence ) background .have a harsh anti-communist stance . and have a team of attack dogs who try to get you giving up on posting when what you say is of no convenience for them ( or their editorial line ) .Then, they use the alibi on your comment not being "intelligent", but then you have there the ubiquitous one-liner sycophant who says nothing all over these two places permanently .who are never summoned .

But, Isabella, what you so confidently say about Mr. Andropov´s policies, intrigates me, since I wonder what idea you have on what the ideas, strategies, tactics and future plans of Mr. Andropov could be to state that VVP is not following them ..I think it is impossible for you, or even for Mr. Khazin, to know what the plans of Mr. Andropov would be, since he was, at different times in the USSR, at the helms of secret security agency and foreign policy, whose main directives were for sure secret, and not at the hand/knowledge of anybody but a few under/of his "umbrella"/confidence call them "siloviki" or whatever you want .

Thus, in spite of that VVP moves seem to confirm he is a liberal playing the same play than the capitalist West, we do not know nothing for sure, since, if this would be obvious for all us, somebody would not be doing its work rightly, as certain senior strategist told me at Fort Russ .
The worst side of this secrecy, obviously needed for strategic purposes, is that common people, as happens to me, could start feeling dissapointed with VVP and discouraged of continuing supporting him .thus some signs from time to time would be neccessary for the people to continue trusting .

Jake , July 1, 2018 at 11:32 am GMT
Of course there is a 5th column inside the Kremlin and Russia. The Anglo-Zionist Empire has paid for it.
Medvedev , July 1, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT

managed to effectively put its #1 liberal critic , Boris Nemtsov

When was he ever relevant?

ploni almoni , July 1, 2018 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Anon

Deep.

The Scalpel , Website July 1, 2018 at 12:35 pm GMT
@Anon

Fascinating. What is the source?

DESERT FOX , July 1, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT
Zionists are Satanists and undermine governments everywhere that they get a foothold and they already created a holocaust in Russia with the 1917 overthrow of the czar and the resulting murder of some 60 million Russians and are now trying to undermine the Russian government again, this is no surprise as this is what Zionists do ie they are killers and wreckers of governments and are trying to do the same here in America.
Vojkan , July 1, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT
One thing noticeable regarding people who comment Putin's policies from abroad, not from within Russia: much projection of own prejudices and a lot of wishful thinking.
One thing noticeable regarding Putin's policies: no prejudice, no wishful thinking, just Russian self-consciousness and pragmatism.
Order is restored. Russia's military might is restored. The economy and the living standard have improved. Russia masters her destiny. So far, what he does works. What else?
bj , July 1, 2018 at 2:33 pm GMT
@Anon

The ladies got a great interview with Aleksandr Dugin–

"Aleksandr Dugin on Millennials, Modernity and Religion"

bj , July 1, 2018 at 2:50 pm GMT
The ladies got a great interview with Alexandr Dugin–

Aleksandr Dugin on Millennials, Modernity and Religion

Dagon Shield , July 1, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
The article is written by Saker without any doubt for it has his imprimatur of length for readers like me, matzo ball radio says it all. Finally, it seems that Jews and Russians have a sado masochistic arrangements; one can't do without the other. Qui bono?
Svigor , July 1, 2018 at 3:58 pm GMT
So, America is trying to do to Russia what Russia has been trying to do to America for 100 years.

Great story, bro.

mike k , July 1, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
There seems to be unanimity on this site condemning the Saker, and those commenting on his blog. But what if he is simply correct in his suspicions about a fifth column in Russia? Is that really so strange? Do you really think the Atlantacists and their ilk are nonexistent? I notice no real proof of the inaccuracy of the Saker's contentions, but a lot of ad hominem critique of his "mood". Maybe he is dead wrong in all his ideas about Putin's Russia – but where's the proof?? The commenters here seem in danger of falling into the same baseless contentions trap they accuse the Saker of.
tyrone , July 1, 2018 at 4:25 pm GMT
@ATBOTL

They want the same democratic utopia for Russia they gave to Iraq,Libya ,Ukraine ,Syria etc. etc. etc.

Wally , July 1, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
@FKA Max

said:
"Putin might know how many Jews really died in the Holocaust "

Please preset proof that any Jews died in 'the holocau$t' as alleged.

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

Anon [425] Disclaimer , July 1, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT

Philip Owen , July 1, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT

@mike k

To think about "Atlanticists" as some kind of coherent group is to submit to Saker's paranoia. Such paranoia is normal in nationalism. Shades of the John Birch society. If you look for evidence of conspiracy X you will always find it.

Blackdawg , July 1, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
Very well written synopsis of the current situation, and how Russia came to be in this place at this time. I appreciate the recap of the history from Yeltsin moving forward.
Svigor , July 1, 2018 at 6:46 pm GMT
@anonymous

Saker's a clown.

hyperbola , July 1, 2018 at 7:14 pm GMT
The "atlanticists" are a rampant fifth column throughout Europe. Germany is particularly badly infested and in need of a thorough cleaning out. Russians will be better off if they can keep them mostly out of their country.

Die Zeit Die Anstalt Netzwerke Think Tank Josef Joffe

Tyrion 2 , Website July 1, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT
Given Russian life expectancy, Russian pension age was too low. Naturally, raising it temporarily lowered Putin's popularity, but taking that hit is the essence of forward-thinking leadership.
Milton , July 1, 2018 at 8:24 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

You Israeli-First traitors love citing Ezekiel 38 and Isaiah 17 to justify your wicked warmongering, but in your malice you have been blinded to the fact that Isaiah 17 describes not only the destruction of Damascus but also the destruction of a wicked faction in Israel: the Baal-worshipping Zionists whom you think are beyond God's reach.

Johnny Rico , July 1, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT
You guys getting excited? That false flag and/or "Ukro-Nazi" attack by the "Anglo-Zionist" Empire is still happening right?

During the World Cup. Remember?

Anybody want to bet on the exact date?

Ya think the refs throwing the game to the Russians today is all part of the master plan?

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 10:44 pm GMT
These are the people who murdered millions and millions under Yeltsin. By "privatizing" and other wonderful "conservative" "capitalist" policies. Getting rid of Communism by killing all the people who benefit by it. Brilliant.

So I guess that makes these "5th columnists" good, right? By your lights, anyway.

Wally , July 1, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
@obwandiyag

Except those who 'benefited from Communism' are the ones who got rid of Communism.

paullllllllllll , July 1, 2018 at 11:44 pm GMT
I think it's clear at this point that Putin serves the globalist elites. He is in the process of serving Syria and Iran to them on a dish.
FKA Max , Website July 2, 2018 at 1:11 am GMT
@FKA Max

I'm still puzzled as to why Illarionov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov made that Kyoto Protocol-Auschwitz comparison, and I am still not sure if he is ethnically Jewish or not. I found some new indicators that point to him having Jewish roots, though.

Either he made the comment in sincerity and not as a joke, or someone (Putin?) told him to say it that way for propaganda purposes. Maybe being asked/forced to make that comparison also contributed to him quitting his job some months later?

In a 2005 interview after his resignation from his economic advisory post, he says the following, which could indicate that the Kyoto Protocol-Auschwitz comparison was not of his own making, but a talking point given to him by the Kremlin public relations and propaganda department:

This (gas) war was the last drop in my decision to resign. I was offered to take part in it as a propagandist who would explain why the price hike and everything else that is being done in our bilateral relations are liberal economic policies. However, the factors that led to this decision have nothing in common with liberal economic policies.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1145192,00.html

Now to the point why I believe that Andrey (or Andrei, I don't know which spelling is the correct one) Illarionov might come from a Jewish background. He worked under/with "Young Turks" economist https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/02/09/yeltsins-inner-circle-of-young-turks/3ab11a79-fcdb-4dd0-a14e-da71cee520ee/ Yegor Gaidar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar who apparently was of Jewish extraction. This, in my opinion, increases the likelihood that Illarionvo is too. According to some Russian nationalists Medvedev is as well.

Having outlined all of the problems with the country, he announced who was responsible – the Jews. "[Yegor] Gaidar [in charge of privatisation under Yeltsin] – he is a Jew. What good has come in the last 17 years?" He continued, "We are international communists. Our fight is not with the Chechens or the Georgians. It is with the Jews!"
[...]
The Jewish community in Moscow were equally concerned about Medvedev's ethnicity. One local Jewish leader was quoted as saying, "I pray it isn't true, because it would only make trouble, for him and for us".

During his presidency, Vladimir Putin built his popularity on the traditional ground of national pride and defence of Russia from ill-willed foreigners, but, to his credit, he has a record of speaking out against antisemitism. His comments that he was "ashamed" of antisemitism in Russia when he visited Auschwitz in 2005 were seen as groundbreaking here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/may/22/russiasoldenmity

Putin seems to send mixed messages on and to the Jewish community. One to please his domestic audience of voters who, understandably, are overwhelmingly counter-semitic, because they blame predominately-Jewish economists and bankers and their radical and failed economic policies for the many millions of premature deaths during the 1990s economic crisis in Russia.

An extra 2.5-3 million Russian adults died in middle age in the period 1992-2001 than would have been expected based on 1991 mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC259165/

And one philo-semitic or semitic-sympathique message to his predominately-Jewish billionaire/oligarch financial backers to assure them and clam them down that they are safe with him, unless they turn on him or try to undermine his authority.

Here a video of Illarionov talking about the Russian economy. By the way, he considers himself to be a libertarian, which could be another indicator that he is Jewish, since libertarianism is very popular with Jews https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-rejects-anti-semitism/

Economics in Russia – Andrei Illarionov | Rhodes 2016

JamesinNewMexico , July 2, 2018 at 2:01 am GMT
@mikkkkas

The important question: does the truth matter? Most people want the answer they want, not the truth and should be forced to truthfully answer why. One day that will happen.

AnonFromTN , July 2, 2018 at 2:19 am GMT
With all due respect, I think that seeing Russian politics as eternal fight between Eurasian Sovereignists (used to be called Slavyanophiles under tsars) and Atlantic Integrationists (used to be called Westerners in tsarist times) is naïve, maybe even childish. Not to mention that this does not explain why China is where it is now, and many other obvious things.

I'd propose an alternative theory. Russian and Chinese elites include people who are OK being second- or even third-rate in the world elites, and those who want to be first-rate. The latter are patriotic, because you cannot be first-rate unless you have a strong truly sovereign country behind you. Apparently, Putin, Xi, and many Russian and Chinese oligarchs supporting them, want to be seen as first-rate, equals among equals, in contrast to pathetic nonentities like Ukrainian "president" Poroshenko, most Ukrainian oligarchs, Polish elites, or elites of vaudeville Baltic statelets.

Thing is, if your country is a poodle of the US, you are second-rate at best (e.g., EU elites), but when your country is a poodle of the EU, you are no better than third-rate. So, the whole intrigue in Russian and Chinese politics is essentially the struggle between ambitious members of the elites (they call themselves patriots, thereby wooing the support of the populace), and weaker-spirited members, who would rather be third-rate than fight for a better position (pro-US, or generally pro-Western forces). So far proud patriots are winning in both Russia and China, but lower grade pro-Western forces won't concede and keep fighting. As far as pension reform in Russia goes, robbing the public to enrich the elites is in the interests of both factions. However, I won't be surprised if the patriotic faction blames it all on pro-Western forces, which Russian and Chinese people do sincerely despise.

AnonFromTN , July 2, 2018 at 2:29 am GMT
@Quartermaster

That's what Ukies hope for. They were always wrong (Mazepa serving Sweden, some scum serving Austro-Hungarian Empire, some scum serving Hitler, "holier-than-thou" communists serving USSR, etc.). They are wrong again. But it's inhumane to say this: you don't want to shatter pipe dreams of people who have nothing else, and never will.

AnonFromTN , July 2, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere. Antisemitsm was by ~90% the myth created by these people. One example I know first-hand: in my year at the school of Biology in the best and most privileged Moscow State University about 20-25% of students were Jewish or half-Jewish, whereas Jews constituted 2-3% of the USSR population.

AnonFromTN , July 2, 2018 at 3:11 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

A note for those who know stats: this was a representative sampling: ~ 250 people graduated from MSU School of Biology in my year, and the picture was pretty much the same in subsequent years.

Bill spence , July 2, 2018 at 3:30 am GMT
@mikkkkas

A 5th column in the Kremlin won't do anything. You need one in the security service or in the army.

Saker likes to waste our time when he spins fantasies.

FKA Max , Website July 2, 2018 at 3:51 am GMT
@FKA Max

Dmitry Medvedev denies having any Jewish roots/ancestry: https://www.rferl.org/a/1079677.html

The following source claims his mother is Jewish, but I don't know how reliable he is:

As a sidenote, Medvedev's visit is all the more interesting given that he is a Jew, the son of a Jewish mother and the first Jew to become President of Russia, much less enter the Kremlin in any capacity besides the following: doctor, scientist, military hero, foreigner.

I've personally confirmed Medvedev's Jewish identity with former Muscovites, who say that Medvedev's mother regularly attended the main synagogue in Moscow. The subject has not been broached much in Russian media, as Medvedev is Putin's man, and, well, Russian journalists know what's good for them, or they have an accident – there is freedom of choice in Russia. I wonder if anyone's bothered to tell the Arabs.

http://victorshikhman.blogspot.com/2010/11/lieberman-for-win.html Archived link : http://archive.is/Fi1Rn

Anonymous [116] Disclaimer , July 2, 2018 at 3:58 am GMT
@Isabella

You will notice that the comments section at that site is infested with leftist dinosaurs. Maybe they have a certain influence on the analyses.
Ozymandias

CrownLeaf , July 2, 2018 at 5:00 am GMT
@mikkkkas

You are spot on. I, too, have noticed a change toward the negative on The Saker's part. A bit befuddling. Seems that Russia and Putin have been doing well on numerous fronts, in spite of Western attempts to the contrary. Difficulties may often exist, but I just don't see 5th column doom and gloom.

Putin is perhaps the most rational, level headed, intelligent leader whom I've seen in my lifetime. Wish we had his equivalent in the USA.

[Jul 03, 2018] Just over a year ago, supposed Wikileaks source Seth Rich was assassinated

Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website July 2, 2018 at 4:36 am GMT

And it goes on today. Just over a year ago, Wikileaks source Seth Rich was assassinated. Fox News and lefty Jimmy Dore reported this, until the Deep State put the screws on and they both retracted with bogus stories to "correct" their errors. No one talks about this anymore.

[Jul 03, 2018] Trump's "Infrastructure" Plan: Pump Up the Pentagon by William Hartung

Notable quotes:
"... Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base," identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. ..."
Jul 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Other than shouting about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of Donald Trump's most frequently proclaimed promises on the 2016 campaign trail was the launching of a half-trillion-dollar plan to repair America's crumbling infrastructure (employing large numbers of workers in the process). Eighteen months into his administration, no credible proposal for anything near that scale has been made. To the extent that the Trump administration has a plan at all for public investment, it involves pumping up Pentagon spending, not investing in roads, bridges, transportation, better Internet access, or other pressing needs of the civilian economy.

Not that President Trump hasn't talked about investing in infrastructure. Last February, he even proposed a scheme that, he claimed, would boost the country's infrastructure with $1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. With a typical dose of hyperbole, he described it as "the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history."

Analysts from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania -- Trump's alma mater -- beg to differ. They note that the plan actually involves only $200 billion in direct federal investment, less than one-seventh of the total promised. According to Wharton's experts, much of the extra spending, supposedly leveraged from the private sector as well as state and local governments, will never materialize. In addition, were such a plan launched, it would, they suggest, fall short of its goal by a cool trillion dollars. In the end, the spending levels Trump is proposing would have "little to no impact" on the nation's gross domestic product. To add insult to injury, the president has exerted next to no effort to get even this anemic proposal through Congress, where it's now dead in the water .

There is, however, one area of federal investment on which Trump and the Congress have worked overtime with remarkable unanimity to increase spending: the Pentagon, which is slated to receive more than $6 trillion over the next decade. This year alone increases will bring total spending on the Pentagon and related agencies (like the Department of Energy where work on nuclear warheads takes place) to $716 billion . That $6-trillion, 10-year figure represents more than 30 times as much direct spending as the president's $200 billion infrastructure plan.

In reality, Pentagon spending is the Trump administration's substitute for a true infrastructure program and it's guaranteed to deliver public investments, but neglect just about every area of greatest civilian need from roads to water treatment facilities.

The Pentagon's Covert Industrial Policy

One reason the Trump administration has chosen to pump money into the Pentagon is that it's the path of least political resistance in Washington. A combination of fear, ideology, and influence peddling radically skews "debate" there in favor of military outlays above all else. Fear -- whether of terrorism, Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea -- provides one pillar of support for the habitual overfunding of the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state (which in these years has had a combined trillion-dollar annual budget). In addition, it's generally accepted in Washington that being tagged "soft on defense" is the equivalent of political suicide, particularly for Democrats. Add to that the millions of dollars spent by the weapons industry on lobbying and campaign contributions, its routine practice of hiring former Pentagon and military officials, and the way it strategically places defense-related jobs in key states and districts, and it's easy to see how the president and Congress might turn to arms spending as the basis for a covert industrial policy.

The Trump plan builds on the Pentagon's already prominent role in the economy. By now, it's the largest landowner in the country, the biggest institutional consumer of fossil fuels, the most significant source of funds for advanced government research and development, and a major investor in the manufacturing sector. As it happens, though, expanding the Pentagon's economic role is the least efficient way to boost jobs, innovation, and economic growth.

Unfortunately, there is no organized lobby or accepted bipartisan rationale for domestic funding that can come close to matching the levers of influence that the Pentagon and the arms industry have at their command. This only increases the difficulty Congress has when it comes to investing in infrastructure, clean energy, education, or other direct paths toward increasing employment and economic growth.

Former congressman Barney Frank once labeled the penchant for using the Pentagon as the government's main economic tool "weaponized Keynesianism" after economist John Maynard Keynes's theory that government spending should pick up the slack in investment when private-sector spending is insufficient to support full employment. Currently, of course, the official unemployment rate is low by historical standards. However, key localities and constituencies , including the industrial Midwest, rural areas, and urban ones with significant numbers of black and Hispanic workers, have largely been left behind. In addition, millions of "discouraged workers" who want a job but have given up actively looking for one aren't even counted in the official unemployment figures, wage growth has been stagnant for years, and the inequality gap between the 1% and the rest of America is already in Gilded Age territory.

Such economic distress was crucial to Donald Trump's rise to power. In campaign 2016, of course, he endlessly denounced unfair trade agreements, immigrants, and corporate flight as key factors in the plight of what became a significant part of his political base: downwardly mobile and displaced industrial workers (or those who feared that this might be their future fate).

The Trump Difference

Although insufficient, increases in defense manufacturing and construction can help areas where employment in civilian manufacturing has been lagging. Even as it's expanded, however, defense spending has come to play an ever-smaller role in the U.S. economy, falling from 8%-10% of the gross domestic product in the 1950s and 1960s to under 4% today. Still, it remains crucial to the economic base in defense-dependent locales like southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington state. Such places, in turn, play an outsized political role in Washington because their congressional representatives tend to cluster on the armed services, defense appropriations, and other key committees, and because of their significance on the electoral map.

A long-awaited Trump administration "defense industrial base" study should be considered a tip-off that the president and his key officials see Pentagon spending as the way to economincally prime the pump. Note, as a start, that the study was overseen not by a defense official but by the president's economics and trade czar, Peter Navarro, whose formal title is White House director of trade and industrial policy. A main aim of the study is to find a way to bolster smaller defense firms that subcontract to giants like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin.

Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base," identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. The CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, one of the defense lobby's most powerful trade groups, underscored Navarro's point when, in July 2017, he insisted that "our industry's contributions to U.S. national security and economic well-being can't be taken for granted." (He failed to explain how an industry that absorbs more than $300 billion per year in Pentagon contracts could ever be "taken for granted.")

Trump's defense-industrial-base policy tracks closely with proposals put forward by Daniel Goure of the military-contractor-funded Lexington Institute in a December 2016 article titled "How Trump Can Invest in Infrastructure and Make America Great Again." Goure's main point: that Trump should make military investments -- like building naval shipyards and ammunition plants -- part and parcel of his infrastructure plan. In doing so, he caught the essence of the arms industry's case regarding the salutary effects of defense spending on the economy:

"Every major military activity, whether production of a new weapons system, sustainment of an existing one or support for the troops, is imbedded in a web of economic activities and supports an array of businesses. These include not only major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, but a host of middle-tier and even mom-and-pop businesses. Money spent at the top ripples through the economy. Most of it is spent not on unique defense items, but on products and services that have commercial markets too."

What Goure's analysis neglects, however, is not just that every government investment stimulates multiple sectors of the economy, but that virtually any other kind would have a greater ripple effect on employment and economic growth than military spending does. Underwritten by the defense industry, his analysis is yet another example of how the arms lobby has distorted economic policy and debate in this country.

These days, it seems as if there's nothing the military won't get involved in. Take another recent set of "security" expenditures in what has already become a billion-dollar-plus business: building and maintaining detention centers for children, mainly unaccompanied minors from Central America, caught up in the Trump administration's brutal security crackdown on the U.S.-Mexico border. One company, Southwest Key, has already received a $955 million government contract to work on such facilities. Among the other beneficiaries is the major defense contractor General Dynamics , normally known for making tanks, ballistic-missile-firing submarines, and the like, not ordinarily ideal qualifications for taking care of children.

Last but not least, President Trump has worked overtime to tout his promotion of U.S. arms sales as a jobs program. In a May 2018 meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House (with reporters in attendance), he typically brandished a map that laid out just where U.S. jobs from Saudi arms sales would be located. Not coincidentally, many of them would be in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida that had provided him with his margin of victory in the 2016 elections. Trump had already crowed about such Saudi deals as a source of "jobs, jobs, jobs" during his May 2017 visit to Riyadh, that country's capital. And he claimed on one occasion -- against all evidence -- that his deals with the Saudi regime for arms and other equipment could create "millions of jobs."

The Trump administration's decision to blatantly put jobs and economic benefits for U.S. corporations above human rights considerations and strategic concerns is likely to have disastrous consequences. Its continued sales of bombs and other weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for example, allows them to go on prosecuting a brutal war in Yemen that has already killed thousands of civilians and put millions more at risk of death from famine and disease. In addition to being morally reprehensible, such an approach could turn untold numbers of Yemenis and others across the Middle East into U.S. enemies -- a high price to pay for a few thousand jobs in the arms sector.

Pentagon Spending Versus a Real Infrastructure Plan

While the Trump administration's Pentagon spending will infuse new money into the economy, it's certainly a misguided way to spur economic growth. As University of Massachusetts economist Heidi Garrett-Peltier has demonstrated , when it comes to creating jobs, military spending lags far behind investment in civilian infrastructure, clean energy, health care, or education. Nonetheless, the administration is moving full speed ahead with its military-driven planning.

In addition, Trump's approach will prove hopeless when it comes to addressing the fast-multiplying problems of the country's ailing infrastructure. The $683 billion extra that the administration proposes putting into Pentagon spending over the next 10 years pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars the American Society of Civil Engineers claims are needed to modernize U.S. infrastructure. Nor will all of that Pentagon increase even be directed toward construction or manufacturing activities (not to speak of basic infrastructural needs like roads and bridges). A significant chunk of it will, for instance, be dedicated to paying the salaries of the military's massive cadre of civilian and military personnel or health care and other benefits.

In their study, the civil engineers suggest that failing to engage in a major infrastructure program could cost the economy $4 trillion and 2.5 million jobs by 2025, something no Pentagon pump-priming could begin to offset. In other words, using the Pentagon as America's main conduit for public investment will prove a woeful approach when it comes to the health of the larger society.

One era in which government spending did directly stimulate increased growth, infrastructural development, and the creation of well-paying jobs was the 1950s, a period for which Donald Trump is visibly nostalgic . For him, those years were evidently the last in which America was truly "great." Many things were deeply wrong with the country in the fifties -- from rampant racism, sexism, and the denial of basic human rights to McCarthyite witch hunts -- but on the economic front the government did indeed play a positive role.

In those years, public investment went far beyond Pentagon spending, which President Dwight Eisenhower (of " military-industrial complex " fame) actually tried to rein in. It was civilian investments -- from the G.I. Bill to increased incentives for housing construction to the building of an interstate highway system -- that contributed in crucial ways to the economic boom of that era. Whatever its failures and drawbacks, including the ways in which African-Americans and other minorities were grossly under-represented when it came to sharing the benefits, the Eisenhower investment strategy did boost the overall economy in a fashion the Trump plan never will.

The notion that the Pentagon can play a primary role in boosting employment to any significant degree is largely a myth that serves the needs of the military-industrial complex, not American workers or Donald Trump's base. Until the political gridlock in Washington that prevents large-scale new civilian investments of just about any sort is broken, however, the Pentagon will continue to seem like the only game in town. And we will all pay a price for those skewed priorities, in both blood and treasure.

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex .

[Jun 28, 2018] WASP culture was formed out of the "Puritan' wing of the Anglophone reformation, and Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy.

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jake says: June 5, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT

You know how that makes sense? How it can be possible?

The Anglosphere is, obviously, the product of the British Empire. Modern English culture is best identified as WASP (though that identification was made by an American about the Philadelphia area Elites, which he then expanded as he realized it was not local, and not even national, but Global wherever Anglo-Americanism held sway). WASP culture is specifically that which formed out of the "Puritan' wing of the Anglophone reformation, and Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy.

...

Curmudgeon , June 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT

@Jake

At the risk of splitting hairs, Puritans may be "protest-ants" but are not Christians. They reject the Holy Trinity and refer to it as the Anti-Christ. They also cling to Mosaic law, which means they reject all of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, but accept a Jewish interpretation of Mosaic Law. Their goal was to purge the Church of England of all of its "Catholic" trappings. Neither the C of E nor RC Church of the 17th century were "Jew friendly" as they are today.

Most other Protestant denominations accepted the Holy Trinity, but rejected what they saw as excesses of the RC Church such as indulgences, purgatory, and Papal infallibility. Much of Aquinas' Summa Theologica was entirely within "mainstream" Protestantism. On that basis, Puritans were/are not WASPs in the normally understood meaning, and were a 2nd unpopular wave of the Anglophone reformation. Not unlike the 2nd Bolshevik wave of the Russian Revolution.

By the way, Puritans, like Jews, were not individualists, they were collectivists.

Otherwise, good analysis.

Crawfurdmuir , June 5, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

At the risk of splitting hairs, Puritans may be "protest-ants" but are not Christians. They reject the Holy Trinity and refer to it as the Anti-Christ.

If by Puritan you mean the Calvinist faction in the religious controversies leading up to and culminating in the English Civil War and Cromwell's Protectorate, this is not true. This faction was divided between Independents, who favored a Congregational polity, and Presbyterians, who advocated a system of church governance like that in Scotland, where (although the hated bishoprics had been abolished) there was a measure of central authority and doctrinal uniformity.

A small minority of the Independents embraced Socinianism, the ancestor of modern Unitarian-Universalism, but they were never significant in numbers during the 17th century. Most Puritans, including those in the colonies of New England, were Trinitarian. Unitarianism did not have wide support until the 19th century, when significant numbers of Congregational churches deserted old-fashioned Calvinism for it. Abiel Holmes, the grandfather of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was a Trinitarian Calvinist who lost his position as minister of First Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, when the congregation there voted to replace him with a Unitarian.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiel_Holmes

[Jun 28, 2018] How America's Wars Fund Inequality at Home by Stephanie Savell

Notable quotes:
"... The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century. ..."
"... Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts. ..."
"... However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | www.tomdispatch.com

Credit-Card Wars
Today's War-Financing Strategies Will Only Increase Inequality
By Stephanie Savell

In the name of the fight against terrorism, the United States is currently waging " credit-card wars " in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Never before has this country relied so heavily on deficit spending to pay for its conflicts. The consequences are expected to be ruinous for the long-term fiscal health of the U.S., but they go far beyond the economic. Massive levels of war-related debt will have lasting repercussions of all sorts. One potentially devastating effect, a new study finds, will be more societal inequality.

In other words, the staggering costs of the longest war in American history -- almost 17 years running, since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 -- are being deferred to the future. In the process, the government is contributing to this country's skyrocketing income inequality.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent $5.6 trillion on its war on terror, according to the Costs of War Project, which I co-direct, at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs . This is a far higher number than the Pentagon's $1.5 trillion estimate, which only counts expenses for what are known as "overseas contingency operations," or OCO -- that is, a pot of supplemental money, outside the regular annual budget, dedicated to funding wartime operations. The $5.6 trillion figure, on the other hand, includes not just what the U.S. has spent on overseas military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, but also portions of Homeland Security spending related to counterterrorism on American soil, and future obligations to care for wounded or traumatized post-9/11 military veterans. The financial burden of the post-9/11 wars across the Greater Middle East -- and still spreading , through Africa and other regions -- is far larger than most Americans recognize.

During prior wars, the U.S. adjusted its budget accordingly by, among other options, raising taxes to pay for its conflicts. Not so since 2001, when President George W. Bush launched the "Global War on Terror." Instead, the country has accumulated a staggering amount of debt. Even if Washington stopped spending on its wars tomorrow, it will still, thanks to those conflicts, owe more than $8 trillion in interest alone by the 2050s.

Putting the Gilded Age to Shame

It's hard to fathom what that enormous level of debt will do to our economy and society. A new Costs of War study by political scientist and historian Rosella Capella Zielinski offers initial clues about its impact here. She takes a look at how the U.S. has paid for its conflicts from the War of 1812 through the two World Wars and Vietnam to the present war on terror. While a range of taxes, bond sales, and other mechanisms were used to raise funds to fight such conflicts, no financial strategy has relied so exclusively on borrowing -- until this century. Her study also explores how each type of war financing has affected inequality levels in this country in the aftermath of those conflicts.

The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century.

Capella Zielinski carefully breaks down what effects the methods used to pay for various wars have had on subsequent levels of social inequality. During the Civil War, for example, the government relied primarily on loans from private donors. After that war was over, the American people had to pay those loans back with interest, which proved a bonanza for financial elites, primarily in the North. Those wealthy lenders became wealthier still and everyone else, whose taxes reimbursed them, poorer.

In contrast, during World War I, the government launched a war-bond campaign that targeted low-income people. War savings stamps were offered for as little as 25 cents and war savings certificates in denominations starting at $25. Anyone who could make a small down payment could buy a war bond for $50 and cover the rest of what was owed in installments. In this way, the war effort promoted savings and, in its wake, a striking number of low-income Americans were repaid with interest, decreasing the inequality levels of that era.

Taxation strategies have varied quite significantly in various war periods as well. During World War II, for instance, the government raised tax rates five times between 1940 and 1944, levying progressively steeper ones on higher income brackets (up to 65% on incomes over $1 million). As a result, though government debt was substantial in the aftermath of a global struggle fought on many fronts, the impact on low-income Americans could have been far worse. In contrast, the Vietnam War era began with a tax cut and, in the aftermath of that disastrous conflict, the U.S. had to deal with unprecedented levels of inflation. Low-income households bore the brunt of those higher costs, leading to greater inequality.

Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts.

In other words, in this century, Washington has combined the domestic borrowing patterns of the Civil War with the tax cuts of the Vietnam era. That means one predictable thing: a rise in inequality in a country in which the income inequality gap is already heading for record territory.

Just to add to the future burden of it all, this is the first time government wartime borrowing has relied so heavily on foreign debt. Though there is no way of knowing how this will affect inequality here in the long run, one thing is already obvious: it will transfer wealth outside the country.

Economist Linda Bilmes has argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars. In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a slush fund that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be offset elsewhere in the budget.

According to Bilmes, "This process is less transparent, less accountable, and has rendered the cost of the wars far less visible." As a measure of the invisible impact of war funding in Washington and elsewhere, she calculates that, while the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense discussed war financing in 79% of its hearings during the Vietnam era, since 9/11, there have been similar mentions at only 17% of such hearings. For its part, the Senate Finance Committee has discussed war-funding strategy in a thoroughgoing way only once in almost 17 years.

Hidden Tradeoffs and Deferred Costs

The effect of this century's unprecedented budgetary measures is that, for the most part, the American people don't feel the financial weight of the wars their government is waging -- or rather, they feel it, but don't recognize it for what it is. This corresponds remarkably well with the wars themselves, fought by a non-draft military in distant lands and largely ignored in this country (at least since the vast public demonstrations against the coming invasion of Iraq ended in the spring of 2003). The blowback from those wars, the way they are coming home, has also been ignored, financially and otherwise.

However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%.

How exactly does this trade-off work? The National Priorities Project explains it well. Every year the federal government negotiates levels of discretionary spending (as distinct from mandatory spending, which largely consists of Social Security and Medicare). In 2001, there were fewer discretionary funds allocated to defense than to non-defense programs, but the ensuing war on terror dramatically inflated military spending relative to other parts of the budget. In 2017, military and national security spending accounted for 53% of discretionary spending. The 2018 congressionally approved omnibus spending package allocates $700 billion for the military and $591 billion for non-military purposes, leaving that proportion about the same. (Keep in mind, that those totals don't even include all the money flowing into that Overseas Contingency Operations fund). President Trump's proposals for future spending, if accepted by Congress, would ensure that, by 2023, the proportion of military spending would soar to 65% .

In other words, the rise in war-related military expenditures entails losses for other areas of federal funding. Pick your issue: crumbling bridges, racial justice, housing, healthcare, education, climate change -- and it's all being affected by how much this country spends on war.

Nonetheless, thanks to its credit-card version of war financing, the government has effectively deferred most of the financial costs of its unending conflicts to the future. This, in turn, contributes to how detached most Americans tend to feel from the very fact that their country is now eternally at war. Political scientist and policy analyst Sarah Kreps argues that Americans become invested in how a war is being conducted only when they're asked to pay for it. In her examination of the history of the financing of American wars, she writes , "The visibility and intrusiveness of taxes are exactly what make individuals scrutinize the service for which the resources are being used." If there were war taxes today, their unpopularity would undoubtedly lead Americans to question the costs and consequences of their country's wars in ways now missing from today's public conversation.

Pressing for a real war budget, though, is not only a mechanism to alert Americans to the effects (on them) of the wars their government is fighting. It is also a potential lever through which citizens could affect the country's foreign policy and pressure elected officials to bring those wars to an end. Some civic groups and activists from across the political spectrum have indeed been pushing to reduce the Pentagon budget, bloated by war, corruption , and fear-mongering . They are, however, up against both the power of an ascendant military-industrial complex and wars that have been organized, in their funding and in so many other ways, not to be noticed.

Those who care about this country's economic future would be remiss not to include today's war financing strategy among the country's most urgent fiscal challenges. Anyone interested in improving American democracy and the well-being of its people should begin by connecting the budgetary dots. The more money this country spends on military activities, the more public coffers will be depleted by war-related interest payments and the less public funding there will be for anything else. In short, it's time for Americans worried about living in a country whose inequality gap could soon surpass that of the Gilded Age to begin paying real attention to our " credit-card wars ."

Stephanie Savell, a TomDispatch regular , is co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs . An anthropologist, she conducts research on security and civic engagement in Brazil and in the U.S. She co-authored The Civic Imagination: Making a Difference in American Political Life .

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , and John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands .

Copyright 2018 Stephanie Savell

[Jun 28, 2018] If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush, Obama and Trump?

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

JoaoAlfaiate , June 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT

@Quartermaster

" Putin has invaded Ukraine, stealing the Crimea, and attempting to gain a land bridge by backing a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment."

Of course Russia has strategic interests in the Ukraine and the the Crimea is virtually 100% Russian speaking. The Russians remember WW2 and the 20 million Russian dead inflicted upon them by western Europeans.

If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush, Obama and Trump?

Bragadocious , June 5, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
I find it interesting how while the neocons demonize Putin and are trying to start WW3, Netanyahu and Putin seem to get along fine. This suggests that the neocons really have something else in mind besides towing the Israeli line. Namely, keeping the American public in a state of confusion and acquiescence and ensuring the endless flow of weapons to their favorite ethnostate.
Curmudgeon , June 5, 2018 at 3:23 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Putin is just another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people blind to realize them.

Other than reliable sources like John Brennan, James Clapper, the New York Times and the Washington Post , I presume you have evidence to share of this

Putin has invaded Ukraine,

and this.

stealing the Crimea

Two referenda are "stealing"?

a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment.

Well, the dead people in Donbas, and their families, would probably disagree it was fake, particularly since the victim of the US coup d'etat (with its mercenaries) and rightful President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, was from Donbas. As for the allegations of Russian troops and equipment, I return to my request for evidence.

Russian troops shot down MH-17. deal with it.

Yup, and Assad gassed his own people, so did Saddam, six kajillion were gassed in a 2 car garage located next to crematoria at Auschwitz using explosive bug spray, and the Easter Bunny leaves chocolate eggs at my house every year.

[Jun 28, 2018] More trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 5, 2018 at 7:42 am GMT

Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.

Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.

The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show...

The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
- more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater

Anon [411] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 9:18 am GMT
You seem to be obsessed with neocons, jews etc. Russia is arch-nemesis of the West long before them. Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or Knight Templars.

Since Western Capitalism arose, Russia stands as anti-system to the West. As a model of decent society that is possible without usury, exploitation, violence, enslaving and pillaging other nations – i.e. outside imperialism-colonialism model. Powers that control the West live in constant fear since with mighty Russia their time is always limited, and their power is finite.

Jake , June 5, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Anon

"Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or Knight Templars."

They were.

Of course, the Freemasons also penetrated Russia under Peter the Great and were necessary to all revolutionary activity in the Russian Empire from at least the 1820s.

[Jun 28, 2018] At War With Ourselves The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policies

Notable quotes:
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... In 2015, suicides accounted for over 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the most common method by which people take their own lives. ..."
"... When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well. ..."
"... "Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide, not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I write about." ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

At War With Ourselves: The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policies June 25, 2018 • 72 Comments

There is a direct connection between gun violence and suicide rates in the United States and America's aggressive foreign policy, argues Will Porter.

How America's Gun Violence Epidemic May Have Roots in Overseas War Zones

By Will Porter
Special to Consortium News

In recent months a string of school shootings in the United States has rekindled the debate over gun violence, its causes and what can be done to stop it. But amid endless talk of school shootings and AR-15s, a large piece of the puzzle has been left conspicuously absent from the debate.

Contrary to the notion that mass murderers are at the heart of America's gun violence problem, data from recent years reveals that the majority of gun deaths are self-inflicted.

In 2015, suicides accounted for over 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the most common method by which people take their own lives.

While the causes of America's suicide-driven gun epidemic are complex and myriad, it's clear that one group contributes to the statistics above all others: military veterans.

Beyond the Physical

According to a 2016 study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs, on average some 20 veterans commit suicide every single day, making them among the most prone to take their own lives compared to people working in other professions. Though they comprise under 9 percent of the American population, veterans accounted for 18 percent of suicides in the U.S. in 2014.

When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) accounts for some of the physiological effects of trauma, the "fight-or-flight" response, but the distinct mental, moral and spiritual anguish experienced by many veterans and other victims of trauma has been termed " moral injury ."

A better understanding of that concept and the self-harm it motivates could go a long way toward explaining, and ultimately solving, America's suicide epidemic.

"Moral injury looks beyond the physical and asks who we are as people," Peter Van Buren, a former State Department Foreign Service officer, said in an interview. "It says that we know right from wrong, and that when we violate right and wrong, we injure ourselves. We leave a scar on ourselves, the same as if we poked ourselves with a knife."

While not a veteran himself, during his tenure with the Foreign Service Van Buren served for one year alongside American soldiers at a forward operating base in Iraq. His experiences there would stick with him for life.

"Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide, not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I write about."

Van Buren: A profound sense of guilt.

After retiring from the Foreign Service, Van Buren began research for his novel " Hooper's War ," a fictional account set in WWII Japan. The book centers on American veteran, Nate Hooper, and explores the psychological costs paid by those who survive a war. Van Buren said if he set the book in the past, he thought he could better explore the subject matter without the baggage of current-day politics.

In his research, Van Buren interviewed Japanese civilians who were children at the time of the conflict and found surprising parallels with the soldiers he served with in Iraq. Post-war guilt, he found, does not only afflict the combatants who fight and carry out grisly acts of violence, but civilians caught in the crossfire as well.

For many, merely living through a conflict when others did not is cause for significant distress, a condition known as "survivor's guilt."

"In talking with them I heard so many echoes of what I'd heard from the soldiers in Iraq, and so many echoes of what I felt myself, this profound sense of guilt," Van Buren said.

'We Killed Them'

Whether it was something a soldier did, saw or failed to prevent, feelings of guilt can leave a permanent mark on veterans after they come home.

Brian Ellison, a combat veteran who served under the National Guard in Iraq in 2004, said he's still troubled by his wartime experiences.

Stationed at a small, under protected maintenance garage in the town of ad-Diwaniyah in a southeastern province of Iraq, Ellison said his unit was attacked on a daily basis.

"From the day we got there, we would get attacked every night like clockwork -- mortars, RPGs," Ellison said. "We had no protection; we had no weapons systems on the base."

On one night in April of 2004, after a successful mission to obtain ammunition for the base's few heavy weapons, Ellison's unit was ready to hit back.

"So we got some rounds for the Mark 19 [a belt-fed automatic grenade launcher] and we basically used it as field artillery, shot it up in the air and lobbed it in," Ellison said. "Finally on the last night we were able to get them to stop shooting, but that was because we killed 5 of them. At the time this was something I was proud of. We were like 'We got them, we got our revenge.'"

U.S. military poster. (Health.mil)

"In retrospect, it's like here's this foreign army, and we're in their neighborhood," Ellison said. "They're defending their neighborhood, but they're the bad guys and we're the good guys, and we killed them. I think about stuff like that a lot."

Despite his guilt, Ellison said he was able to sort through the negative feelings by speaking openly and honestly about his experiences and actions. Some veterans have a harder time, however, including one of Ellison's closest friends.

"He ended up going overseas like five times," Ellison said. "Now he's retired and he can't even deal with people. He can't deal with people, it's sad. He was this funny guy, everybody's friend, easy to get along with, now he's a recluse. It's really weird to see somebody like that. He had three young kids and a happy personality, now he's broken."

In addition to the problems created in their personal relationships, the morally injured also often turn to self-destructive habits to cope with their despair.

"In the process of trying to shut this sound off in your head -- this voice of conscience -- many people turn to drugs and alcohol as a way of shutting that voice up, at least temporarily," Van Buren said. "You hope at some point it shuts up permanently . . . Unfortunately, I think that many people do look for the permanent silence of suicide as a way of escaping these feelings."

A Hero's Welcome?

By now most are familiar with the practice of celebrating veterans as heroes upon their return from war, but few realize what psychological consequences such apparently benevolent gestures can have.

"I think the healthiest thing a vet can do is to come to terms with reality," Ellison said. "It's so easy to get swept up -- when we came home off the plane, there was a crowd of people cheering for us. I just remember feeling dirty. I felt like 'I don't want you to cheer for us,' but at the same time it's comforting. It's a weird dynamic. Like, I could just put this horror out of my mind and pretend we were heroes."

"But the terrible part is that, behind that there's reality," Ellison said. "Behind that, we know what we were doing; we know that we weren't fighting for freedom. So when somebody clings onto this 'we were heroes' thing, I think that's bad for them. They have to be struggling with it internally. I really believe that's one of the biggest things that contributes to people committing suicide. They're not able to talk about it, not able to bring it to the forefront and come to terms with it."

Unclear Solution

According to the 2016 VA study, 70 percent of veterans who commit suicide are not regular users of VA services.

The Department of Veteran Affairs was set up in 1930 to handle medical care, benefits and burials for veterans, but some 87 years later, the department is plagued by scandal and mismanagement. Long wait times, common to many government-managed healthcare systems, discourage veterans from seeking the department's assistance, especially those with urgent psychiatric needs.

An independent review was carried out in 2014 by the VA's Inspector General, Richard Griffin, which found that at one Arizona VA facility, 1,700 veterans were on wait lists, waiting an average of 115 days before getting an initial appointment.

"People don't generally seek medical help because the [VA] system is so inefficient and ineffective; everyone feels like it's a waste of time," said a retired senior non-commissioned officer in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) who wished to remain anonymous.

"The system is so bad, even within the SOF world where I work, that I avoid going at all costs," the retired officer said. "I try to get my guys to civilian hospitals so that they can get quality healthcare instead of military healthcare."

Beyond institutions, however, both Ellison and Van Buren agreed that speaking openly about their experiences has been a major step on their road back to normalcy. Open dialogue, then, is not only one way for veterans and other victims of trauma to heal, it may ultimately be the key to solving America's epidemic of gun violence.

The factors contributing to mass murders, school shootings and private crime are, no doubt, important to study, but so long as suicide is left out of the public discourse on guns, genuine solutions may always be just out of reach.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/puAJcGfIq7U?feature=oembed

Will Porter is a journalist who specializes in U.S. foreign policy and Middle East affairs. He writes for the Libertarian Institute and tweets at @WKPancap.

If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

[Jun 28, 2018] The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

A more constructive new on neocons is as well-paid MIC lobbyists. The fact that many Jews are talented lobbyists can explain the concentration of this particular nationality far better, although initially neocons really were mostly turn coat Trotskyites.


Greg Bacon , Website June 5, 2018 at 10:30 am GMT

The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary.

Sounds very similar to another nation that rules over the USA and uses our military for their private merc army, Israel, who claims they have a divine right to Palestine and can kill as many Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians as they want.
After all, their G-d declared them to be his pet project and you don't want to go against G-d, do you?

Not all Jews are neocons, but damn near every neocon is a Jew.

RebelWriter , June 5, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@Anonymous

Irving Krystol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism," is just one example. If you search YouTube you can find a Brian Lamb Booknotes episode where he interviews Krystol about this book, "Neoconservatism; an Autobiography."

He admits in this interview, as well as in the book, that he and most of the early neocons were former Trotskyites.

gsjackson , June 5, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@Anonymous

The first generation of neocons -- Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, Gertrude Himmelfarb, etc. Maybe Norman Podhoretz, but he was always more of a 'main chance' guy.

The rallying cry of world revolution has filtered down after a fashion to their heirs. It's still all war all the time. And at the end of the day, when the wars have subdued the planet, who will be chosen to grasp the reins of world government? One guess.

Florin N , June 5, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

Read this re the origin of the neocon movement:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

It was and is Jewish and Zionist at its core, without any question.

Wilton was a highly respected journalist whose claims seem to be reflexted in statements by various, and equally maligned/suppressed writers of the time.

https://archive.org/details/TheRulersOfRussia-AmericanEdition-ByRevDenisFahey

Of course, any source is immediately decried as 'anti-Semitic' which is a neat way to avoid the question of the truth of the matter

Tarheel American , June 5, 2018 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Anonymous

It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They used to trumpet it, though.

There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals themselves celebrating their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, et al were communists.

Moreover, they were communists of the international revolution variety–the flavor known as Trotskyism.

Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:"

"I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)"

Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of neocons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

Here's a good PBS movie lauding these "intellectuals:"

http://www.pbs.org/arguing/about.html

Colin Wright , Website June 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Florin N

'Read this re the origin of the neocon movement '

To some extent you're mistaking your target here.

I'll readily agree the neo-cons amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel.

On the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and Bolshevism should be checked.

Colin Wright , Website June 5, 2018 at 4:30 pm GMT
@Crawfurdmuir

This is an irritating aspect of it all.

On the one hand, it has lately become common to hide the Judaism of various figures; 'I wonder if he's Jewish' can turn into quite a hunt.

On the other hand, some parties seem to label all and sundry as 'Jews.'

Speaking for myself, I wish I just didn't care. Certainly as of twenty years ago, I could have honestly said I didn't. However, Israel and the fact of our support for her, and the fact that most Jews ultimately support Israel to one degree or another, make the question relevant.

jack daniels , June 5, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to the Jewish fear that the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European Communism.

The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues, since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they aren't too keen on Catholicism either.

It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism. I hope this taboo is successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as the only Christian power left in the world.

[Jun 28, 2018] Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed for

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , June 6, 2018 at 6:49 pm GMT

@Quartermaster

Russian troops shot down MH-17. deal with it.

From Putin (in an earlier interview in Austria):

Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed for. Russian experts "have been denied access to the investigation," said Putin, while Russia's arguments are "not taken into consideration" because nobody "is interested in hearing us out."

Truly sensational new document leak confirms Kiev's direct responsibility for shooting down the Malesian Airlines flight MH17 in Donbass on July 17, 2014. Ukrainian top secret official documents show us that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was ordered to hide all evidence from the Ukrainian responsibility and especially everything which could prove Ukrainian air forces involvement in executed secret state terrorism operation.
The documents are leaked by Ukrainian official to the Sovershenno Sekretno newspaper. Russian and English translations from the orginal articles are available with copies of the leaked documents, which show written orders given by Ukrainian top officials concerning concealing of the operation, shooting down the flight MH17 .

http://www.vietatoparlare.it/leaked-documents-ukrainian-air-forces-shot-down-mh17-confirms-conspiracy-and-guilt/

This article first published on July 30, 2014 contradicts the substance of the recently released Dutch Safety Board Report. We are bringing it to the attention of our readers in view of the soon to be released BBC TV documentary, which suggests that the MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet fighter.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/5394111

Although the Dutch report concluded that the Russian-made BUK surface-to-air missile with a 9N314M warhead brought down the Boeing 777, it did not mention which side was responsible for firing the missile (International Business Times, March 8, 2016

The evidence amply confirms that Malaysian Airlines MH17 was not brought down by a surface to air missile. It was brought down by military aircraft .

http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324

Joint Investigation Team Includes, Excludes Surprising Members

With the Dutch leading the investigation, the logic being that the flight originated from the Netherlands and the majority of the passengers were Dutch, it has formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). At the onset of its creation it seemed obvious that Malaysia would too be included, considering it lost the second largest number of citizens to the disaster and the plane itself was registered in Malaysia. Instead, JIT would end up comprised of Belgium, Ukraine, and Australia, specifically excluding Malaysia.

Joint Investigation Team Includes, Excludes Surprising Members

With the Dutch leading the investigation, the logic being that the flight originated from the Netherlands and the majority of the passengers were Dutch, it has formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). At the onset of its creation it seemed obvious that Malaysia would too be included, considering it lost the second largest number of citizens to the disaster and the plane itself was registered in Malaysia. Instead, JIT would end up comprised of Belgium, Ukraine , and Australia, specifically excluding Malaysia.

Malaysia was both surprised and has protested its exclusion from JIT , and has repeatedly expressed a desire to be included directly in the investigation.

https://journal-neo.org/2014/11/28/mh17-malaysia-s-barring-from-investigation-reeks-of-cover-up/

Carroll Price , June 12, 2018 at 12:07 am GMT
@tac

I will never understand why Russia was foolish enough to turn the plane's black box over (with no strings attached) to Dutch authorities. You would think they would have, at the minimum maintained physical possession, while allowing one or more neutral parties to examine and publish it's contents.

[Jun 27, 2018] Holmes, Uncle Clunk, and and Epic Con Job, by Fred Reed - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal. ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

OK, book report time. I have just finished reading Bad Blood , by John Carreyrou of the Wall Street Journal. Good read, fascinating story. It is the saga of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos, the miraculous blood-testing company of Silicon Valley. Holmes, formerly said to be worth $4.5 billion, ended up under criminal indictment for fraud as of 2015. I suppose many have heard vaguely of Theranos, as I had, but the actual story is astonishing.

Holmes, 19, drops out of Stanford to start a medical-instrumentation company. She is very smart, very driven, very self-confident, very glib, very cold-blooded, very manipulative, very willing to take risks, very pretty, and very ruthless. Everything about her is very. If the foregoing resembles the clinical description of a psychopath, there is a reason.

She also knows almost nothing of the sciences, and nothing at all of electronic or mechanical engineering, or of medical instrumentation. That is, she has no qualifications in the field. She is just very–that word again–smart and pretty and talks a swell show. And yet ye gods and little catfishes, what she managed to do.

Her goal was to invent a medical blood-analyzer that could do a large number of tests on a single drop of blood from a pricked finger. It was a bright idea. If it had worked, it would have been a (very) big deal. This of course is also true of anti-gravity space shps and perpetual motion machines. Making it work required nothing beyond difficult mechanical engineering, electronic engineering, programming, microfluidics, and a few things that were impossible. She knew none of these fields.

But holy smack-and-kerpow, Batman, could she talk. Soon she had investment money pouring in. On her board she got–yes–Henry everlovin' Kissinger and James Mattis (uh-huh, that one,) and former Secretaries of State and Defense and just about every heavy hitter except Pope Francis. More money rained down. I mean with people like that vouching for her, Hank the Kiss and Mad Dog Mattis, it had to be legit–right? She even managed to cozy up to the Clintons and Obama.

Meanwhile the wretched blood gizmo wouldn't, didn't, and couldn't as it turned out, work. It was a metal box with inside it a glue-gun robot arm out of Jersey–I am not inventing this–that made grinding noises and could do only a few tests with wildly unreliable results. You might think of it as Uncle Clunk. Just the thing you want your life to depend on. And lives do depend on good lab results.("OK, lady, Uncle Clunk says you got brain cancer. We have to remove your brain.") Heh. Oops.

So Holmes, who could talk the bark off a tree, faked it. To be fair, she probably thought it would work or hoped it might and turned to chicanery only when it didn't. Anyway, many of her deceptions were clearly fraudulent–well, clearly if you knew about them. For example, most of her results were obtained using commercial analyzers from outfits like Siemens instead of Uncle Clunk. Financial projections were wildly dishonest. Many employees quit over ethhical concerns–but they were bound by sharp-fanged nondisclosure agreements they had to sign to be hired. It was nonsense. Nothing worked. But nobody knew.

Thing was, across America there was a terrific will to believe. Her story was just too good to pass up. People wanted a female Steve Jobs, a girl to join the boys in a startup world of wunderkind guys like Gates and Jobs and Wozniak and Zuckerberg and all. There just weren't any girls. Sure, a few, sort of, a little bit, like Marissa Mayer at Google, but Page and Bryn were the real starters-up. Holmes was beautiful, smart, so very appealing and just a dynamite entrepreneur. She had this astonishingly successful company.

Which didn't have a product.

Note that most of the dazzling university dropouts who became billionaires are in software, not biological sciences. The few in hardware brilliantly put together readily comprehended pieces, like CPUs and memory chips. There is a reason for this. Programming takes a lot of brains and little knowledge. Medicine takes reasonable intelligence and lots of knowledge. Molecular biology takes a lot of brains and a lot of knowledge. A (very) bright kid can learn Python or C-plus-plus in a couple of months in mommy's basement and actually be a programmer. It doesn't work with complicated multidisciplinary computerized micro-fluidized gadgets involving robotic glue-arms. At least, it didn't work.

I wonder why nobody thought of this. When asked for evidence, she ducked, dodged, lied, said the check was in the mail, and any day now.

The non-disclosure agreements saved her, for a while. All employees had to sign them. Her lawyer, who was also on her board, was the scary super lawyer David Boies. If you were a midlevel lab worker, and knew that reagents were out of date, that bad results were being hidden, that Uncle Clunk didn't work–and said so, a savage law firm with unlimited funds and, as events proved, not a lot of ethics, would litigate you into sleeping in alleys. Consequently much was known, but little was said.

Meanwhile–this is crazier than Aunt Sadie, that we kept in the attic–she got freaking Safeway and Walgreens to bite on putting Theranos booths in their stores so customers could get quick finger-prick analyses for very little money. Both companies bought into this, and actually built the booths at considerable expense, without insisting on seeing proof of her claims. I wonder what she was thinking. The scam obviously was going to collapse at some point. And did.

A better question might be what her board members and the chain-store executives were thinking. They were bosses of huge corporations and presumably astute. How did she get away with it? I will guess. Most of those gulled were old men, or nearly so. Note that old men, powerful men, rich men, and famous men, are nevertheless men. Holmes was a honey, slender, very pretty, well-groomed, appealing, smart, and maybe the daughter or girlfriend or mistress that her prey would have liked.

Andrea Dworkin. Finally, a cure for self-abuse. Would the old guys on Elizabeth's board have been as smitten by Andrea?

As the Wall Street Journal closed in, and Theranos got wind of it, things became ethically interesting. Holmes of course knew that Theranos was endangering lives, and had already established a lack of morality. Some of the board came to suspect and quietly bailed. The employees were intimidated, though several talked to the Journal anonymously.

But superlawyer David Boies and his associate Heather King among others at the firm knew. They tried every legal means, or maybe I mean lawyerly means, to block publication of the story. When federal regulatory agencies issued a long, detailed investigative report making it absolutely clear that Theranos did not even come close to legality, and was therefore endangering lives–Boies and King tried to suppress that too. Their success was not great as the Journal put the whole gorgeous taco online, but they tried. It is a curious fact, but a fact, that lawyers are often accessories to crime.

[Jun 27, 2018] jilles dykstra

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolsjewism in order to prevent that German, suppose also Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.

Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders.

The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:

Beckow , June 5, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT

more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater

Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial.

The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future. Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology. But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow descend into a backwater across the Atlantic.

[Jun 27, 2018] Putin is rather philo-semitic

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

JohnnyD , June 5, 2018 at 8:08 pm GMT

I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic. As evident by his friendship with Roman Abramovich, Putin is ok with Jewish oligarchs, as long as they play by his rules ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/israel-admits-a-refugee ). Also, despite being allies with Syria and Iran, Putin has always been on relatively good terms with Israel and its leaders, especially Avigdor Lieberman.

Stephen Sniegoski has an excellent article about Putin's relationship with Israel ( https://www.unz.com/article/russia-and-israel-the-unmentioned-relationship/ ).

Furthermore, Russia has its own laws against Holocaust Denial ( https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/ ).

Ironically, Mark Weber, whose work Mr. Giraldi links to, could be arrested in Putin's Russia. Thus, the idea that Putin is hostile to Jewish interests is absurd.

renfro , June 6, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@JohnnyD

I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic

and

Furthermore, Russia has its own laws against Holocaust Denial ( https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/ ).

First, Putin is a pragmatist and nationalist ..Russia is his only favoritism.

Second, due to Jewish narcissism they think the law was all about them. It wasn't. It doesn't mention the holocaust. It says :

'Denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two"

This was Putin's "Polish Lite' law ..i.e ..divorcing Russia from any crimes during WWII and throwing all blame on the Nazis for any war crimes . 'like' killing Jews. Its his 'balancing act' after also condemning anti-Islam attitudes .

Putin is nipping in the bud any and all ethnic attitudes that could cause the same domestic and political 'unrest' that is now rampant in Europe and the US.

Which is why he also did this: .no 'ethnic ' or 'foreign' agents are going to get a foothold in Russia .

Russia Deports Israeli Rabbi, Second Deportation of Chabad Rabbi in 2017
For the second time this year, Russian authorities have ordered out of the country a foreign Chabad rabbi who had lived there for years.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/russia-deports-israeli-rabbi-second-deportation-of-chabad-rabbi-in-2017-1.5474750

"This week, a Moscow district court ordered Yosef Khersonsky, an Israeli who heads one of the capital's communities, to leave the Russian Federation in connection with his "setting up without permission a for-profit foreign entity," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. The court did not specify the nature of the entity.
In its ruling against Ari Edelkopf, the Krasnodar Court of Appeals accepted the determination of a Sochi tribunal that Edelkopf, who had been working as Chabad's emissary to the city, was a threat to national security
Approximately half of the 70 rabbis working for the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia are foreign. At least eight of them have been denied permission to work in Russia over the past decade, Gorin told JTA in March
Under legislation from 2012 that imposed major limitations on the work of groups with foreign funding, a Jewish charitable group from Ryazan, near Moscow, was flagged in 2015 by the Justice Ministry as a "foreign agent" over its funding from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and its reproduction in a newsletter of political op-eds that appeared in the L'chaim Jewish weekly
Last year, a court in Sverdlovsk convicted a teacher, Semen Tykman, of inciting hatred among students at his Chabad school against Germans and propagating the idea of Jewish superiority. Authorities raided his school and another one in 2015, confiscating textbooks, which some Russian Jews suggested was to create a semblance of equivalence with Russia's crackdown on radical Islam.

[Jun 27, 2018] Crawfurdmuir

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 5, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT 100 Words

The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes.

Earl Browder was not, so far as I know, born a Jew. While living in the Soviet Union he married a Russian Jewess named Raisa Berkman. One of their sons, Felix, married another Jewess, Eva Tislowitz, and Bill Browder was their son. He is matrilineally Jewish.

Apart from this minor quibble, the description of Bill Browder's career seems quite accurate.

[Jun 27, 2018] Immigration Western Wars and Imperial Exploitation Uproot Millions by James Petras

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions to emigrate is overlooked is wars.

In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness of the trade union and solidarity movements.

We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.

Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration

The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood, housing and communities and undermining there security.

As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.

Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.

Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the West.

Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the Gulf states and Iran.

Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.

The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class turned anti-immigrant.

Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.

Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.

Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America

US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 – 2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.

The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.

US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants to the US.

The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US 'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.

The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or across the border.

US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.

Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.

Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.

Conclusion

Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.

The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international law.

To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client terrorists.

ORDER IT NOW

Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.

The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical social democracy.

[Jun 27, 2018] Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in the world is over

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

edNels


- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing and technology ''have got out of the barn'' and successfully transplanted to... greener pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.

An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then it's too late. (''Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of... Latties lately?.puffpuff... // Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!'')

Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in the sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.

Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops which isn't all bad... depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for biosphere mainly.)

But if your "In the Club'' and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket to ride.

The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then Austerity for real.

Beckow ,

June 6, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT

Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in the world is over

Bull's eye. That is an under-appreciated dynamic driving everything from economic policies to the hatred of Trump and populists in general. The narcissistic Western elites cannot stand their own people. One sees it in the culture, academia, economic policies, and the insane attempt to dilute native population and replace them with new migrants. (It is amusing that sophisticated Westerners often boringly allude to the evil 'commies' who 'wanted to elect new people', and of course never did, but they are unwilling to see it happening at home.)

The purpose for creating the Western middle class after WWII was to prevent a revolution. That is no longer a threat, so why coddle the deplorables?

[Jun 27, 2018] An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible for neoliberal globalists to accesp the new reality until the last moment, then it's too late

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

edNels , June 5, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater

This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing and technology "have got out of the barn" and successfully transplanted to greener pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.

An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then it's too late. ("Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of Latties lately?.puffpuff // Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!")

Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in the sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.

Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops which isn't all bad depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for biosphere mainly.)

But if your "In the Club" and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket to ride.

The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then Austerity for real.

[Jun 27, 2018] jack daniels

Notable quotes:
"... Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality! ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 5, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT 300 Words @John Baker How are they 'checked?'

Numerous sources give very high figures for Jews and these have tended to be memory-holed and maligned as you know what.

Consequently sources which report a low number of jews (do you know of any?) from the period are at least as suspect, and ones from a later period and embraced by Jewish scholars more so.

And one must remember that apart from the many name changes by Jews in the Old Bolshevik era (lots of name changes amongst Israel's 'founders' too) they made substantial effort to hide their jewishness, as have later sources.

One might consider the attempted Bokshevik coup in Germany a year after the Russian one.

Even wikipedia has to report that this 'Spartacus uprising' was led almost wholly by Jews. What would they have done had they won? Might the conflation of anti-nationalist communist violence and Jewish Supremacy have been what led in part to Hitler and his racial nationalists? There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his 1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least the willingness to use force to remove the burden. The democratic parties were insufficiently decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual dimension of life. Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in addition to the national need to escape from poverty.

Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality!

[Jun 27, 2018] The mechanics of identity wedge in politics

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [317] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT

@Rational

responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational
Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism) , but party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.

Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one); virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.

them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 ME 7 Me 6 I lose
divide by party D R D R D R ME 7 Me+3 3 I win

As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the outcome.

This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution intended to establish.

The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.

I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone can learn, understand and adopt.

Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a republican,it keeps the pharaoh options open.

[Jun 27, 2018] Disclaimer

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 5, 2018 at 8:29 pm GMT 800 Words The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.

Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.

Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.

But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)

Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.

Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. This egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).

Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity -- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers -- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.

'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.

[Jun 27, 2018] Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Che Guava , June 5, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Tarheel American

I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the various western Trot. groups at the time.

It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it was only of claimed affilliates to the nonsenical 'Fourth Internatiaoal'.

Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.

Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU, cabinets in many European nations, etc.

Even without that, the chart and attached notes are bizarre enough.

The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not understanding the content at all.

Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are like those of the worst cult religionists.

I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundrd metres from my house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until recently. no more. I would buy it at times.

Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.

[Jun 27, 2018] Space Command is About to Launch! by Philip Giraldi

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

I thought that perhaps I had tuned into John Oliver or to Saturday Night Live in error, but no doubt about it, there was an unmistakable President Donald Trump speaking before an audience at the National Space Council. He was saying that on his own presidential authority "I'm hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. We are going to have the Air Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal."

Before signing Space Policy Directive 3 mandating the change and abruptly departing, Trump went on to explain that "My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation. The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space."

The Air Force, which already has a Space Command, will no doubt object to the new arrangement, preferring instead to roll the expanded responsibilities and money into its already existing framework. Secretary of Defense James Mattis is also reported to be against the expansion, explaining in a speech last year that "The creation of an independent Space Corps, with the corresponding institutional growth and budget implications, does not address our nation's fiscal problems in a responsive manner."

And Donald Trump will have to get over a couple of bureaucratic hurdles to get his nifty new interstellar command up and running. First of all, it will require an Act of Congress to create a new branch of the military. That might not be difficult to do as the expansion is being packaged as "national security," which Republicans will support reflexively and Democrats will also get behind not wanting to appear weak before the elections in November. And both parties will also be willing to line up to benefit from the political contributions coming from defense contractors as well as the creation of new military support facilities providing jobs in congressional districts.

And then there is the money, alluded to by Mattis. Start-up funding a new, coequal military branch would mean a huge increase in the defense budget. As long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency and the treasury can print money without any real backing it is possible to ride the wave, but there are currently significant challenges to the dollars survival in that role. If its supremacy ends, there goes the economy taking the unrestrained government spending with it and sinking the Space Command together with much, much more.

Major defense contractors, all of whom were present to hear Trump's speech, were immediately seen to be drooling over the prospect of a new cash cow. And at the Pentagon champagne corks were popping at the thought of a couple of hundred new flag officer positions that will have to be invented and filled as well as the full complement of civilians to staff the bureaucracy. And think of the uniforms that will have to be distinct from those used by the other branches of the service, maybe copying those formerly in vogue on the Starship Enterprise or as seen in the movie Starship Troopers.

The reality is that the United States does indeed have a major national security interest in protecting its network of satellites in orbit as well as related infrastructure, but there is still quite a lot in the Trump remarks that is disturbing. Trump is basically saying two things. The first is that he will be weaponizing outer space and the second is that he is doing so because he intends for the United States to become dominant in that domain. It is a complete ass-backwards approach to the problem of potential development of threats coming from beyond the atmosphere. Instead of arming outer space, Washington should be working with other countries that have capabilities in that region to demilitarize exploration and both commercial and government exploitation. Everyone has an interest in not allowing outer space to become the next site for an arms race, though admittedly working with other countries does not appear to be something that the Trump Administration enters into lightly. Or at all.

And Trump should also abandon his insistence that the United States develop "dominance" in space. The use of such language is a red flag that will make any agreement with countries like Russia and China impossible to achieve. It virtually guarantees that there will be a competition among a number of nations to develop and deploy killer satellites employing lasers and other advanced electronic jamming technologies to protect their own outer space infrastructure.

Trump appears to have internalized a viewpoint that sees the United States as surrounded by threats but able to emerge victorious by being hyper-aggressive on all fronts. It is a posture that might unnerve opponents and bring some success in the short term but which ultimately will create a genuine threat as the rest of the world lines up against Washington. That day might be coming if one goes by the reaction to recent U.S. votes in the United Nations and Trump's behavior at G-7 are anything to go by.

No one in his right mind would allow Trump to dominate outer space based on Washington's track record of irresponsible leadership since 9/11. It has wrecked the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, killing possibly as many as 4 million Muslims in so doing. It has bullied allies into joining its projects in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while also disparaging foreign governments and entering into trade wars. It has bankrupted itself in all but name, systematically dismantled the rights of its own citizens, and has become a rogue nation by virtually every measure.

And when you have firmly established the principle that might makes right and all the universe is at the disposal of Washington, what comes next? Antarctica and the arctic region are by some accounts rich in natural resources. Will we Americans be seeing an Antarctic Command with a mandate to dominate the polar regions to enhance national security? Stay tuned.

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

[Jun 27, 2018] Russia's Nuclear Doctrine Is Being Distorted Once Again

Notable quotes:
"... The adage from the past that everyone could relate to -- "A nuclear war cannot be unleashed, because there will be no winners" -- is now absent from the political statements that are being heard. It is clear that forces have taken the upper hand on Capitol Hill that are still incapable of imagining the consequences of a nuclear Armageddon. Such a path, even if this scenario proves unlikely, will inevitably lead to a potential undermining of the already fragile non-proliferation regime and a breakdown in the negotiations on establishing control over nuclear facilities, which -- and this is not news -- very few countries are taking part in at the present time. ..."
"... For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global stability. In order to achieve this goal, the strategic guidelines for inflicting a first "preemptive and preventive" nuclear strike, as well as the continuing premise of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which have remained unchanged since 1945, must be completely eliminated from American nuclear strategies. ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
It seems odd that the US still does not understand the basic tenets of Russia's nuclear posture. And it must be said that this is not the first time that Western analysts have taken such an unprofessional approach. This has become especially glaring in the run-up to the next NATO summit, which will take place July 11-12 in Brussels.

On the other hand, the newest US nuclear doctrine , which was approved last February, specifies 14 justifications for the use of nuclear weapons, including "low-yield" warheads, which is how US arms experts classify nuclear warheads of 5.0-6.5 kilotons and below. These are precisely the sea- and air-launched warheads the Pentagon intends to utilize in accordance with its new concept of "escalating to de-escalate." Under that theory, low-yield nuclear warheads can be employed by US nuclear forces on an increasing scale in a variety of regional conflicts, with the aim of "de-escalating" them, which might be accomplished with the help of a nuclear first strike.

This practice could cause a chain reaction in the use of nuclear weapons, involving not only "low-yield" warheads, but also more powerful nuclear explosives.

The practice being described -- the potential use of low-yield nuclear weapons, which is a real fixation for the current US administration and is being discussed with increasing frequency in the US -- suggests that America's military and political leaders are committed to dramatically lowering the minimum threshold for their use and expanding the list of acceptable reasons to utilize them under real-world conditions.

The adage from the past that everyone could relate to -- "A nuclear war cannot be unleashed, because there will be no winners" -- is now absent from the political statements that are being heard. It is clear that forces have taken the upper hand on Capitol Hill that are still incapable of imagining the consequences of a nuclear Armageddon. Such a path, even if this scenario proves unlikely, will inevitably lead to a potential undermining of the already fragile non-proliferation regime and a breakdown in the negotiations on establishing control over nuclear facilities, which -- and this is not news -- very few countries are taking part in at the present time.

For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global stability. In order to achieve this goal, the strategic guidelines for inflicting a first "preemptive and preventive" nuclear strike, as well as the continuing premise of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which have remained unchanged since 1945, must be completely eliminated from American nuclear strategies.

These are not ultimatums, as someone defending US nuclear policy has already tried to portray them. This is a completely natural, logical, and sensible step, which would no doubt be positively received all over the world.


LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

You'd think after three generations of this shit people would realize it's all just about the MIC making more money and gaining more power.

07564111 -> LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:17 Permalink

This has nothing at all to do with money and power.

Justin Case -> LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:18 Permalink

That is what it's all about. MIC Oligarchs getting rich. Vietnam was a business not a war. The MIC insiders made a fortune off that fake war.

For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global instability. That instability keeps murican arms dealers in business.

Empire doesn't like sovereign countries. Brits still have that empire mentality, the upper crust's shit don't stink.

beijing expat -> LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:19 Permalink

It's neocon hubris. They are desperate to nuke someone. Of course the counter strategy is very simple; escalate to the brink and leave Washington with 2 choices: BTFO or die. These people are stupid and will eventually get us all killed for nothing.

[Jun 26, 2018] Clinton was parachuted from Arkansas as a suitable puppet.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

utu , June 25, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT

If the claims in the 1990s tell-all bestsellers of Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky can be credited, Israel even considered the assassination of President George H.W. Bush in 1992 for his threats to cut off financial aid to Israel during a conflict over West Bank settlement policies, and I have been informed that the Bush Administration took those reports seriously at the time.

I did not know of Ostrovsky's claim but I was very aware of George H.W. Bush conflict with Yitzhak Shamir which most likely costed him the second term. The conflict obviously was very deemphasized by the MSM. Iirc Patrick Buchanan wrote about it. Bush decided to say NO to Israel and put conditions on providing further funding for immigrants form Russia to Israel. He did it having exceptionally high (90%) approval ratings in the wake of the Desert Storm. So timing was good. But after Congress going against him and AIPAC busing supporters of Israel to DC Bush caved in sometime in Sept. 1991. Buchanan believed that if Bush brought the issue to 'American people' he could have won this conflict but Bush decided to keep Americans in the dark which is a norm when it come to Israel issues. Bush only complained about being all alone in the White House during some press conference but most American did not get the idea what he was compliant about. The Lobby however did not forgive Bush and did not trust him getting the second term in the office. It must have been decided he had to go. An anti Bush campaign was continued by Safire and Friedman in weekly columns in the NYT and negative mostly exaggerated and bogus articles about weak economy were published. The 'It's the economy, stupid' was bogus made up meme. Clinton was parachuted from Arkansas and Ross Perot was encouraged to run and then dis-encouraged when he suspended his campaign and then again encouraged to re-enter the race. He played exactly the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election that stopped the incumbent Taft from getting the 2nd term. This gave presidency to Wilson who brought Federal Reserve and federal tax the the following year and the entrance into the WWI few years later. Was assassination considered as the plan B in case Bush was reelected? Do people from The Lobby talk about killing American presidents among themselves? Yes, they do – even publicly:

ATLANTA JEWISH NEWSPAPER CALLS FOR OBAMA ASSASSINATION. (Jan 22, 2012)

https://www.jpost.com/International/Atlanta-Jewish-newspaper-calls-for-Obama-assassination

Could Obama be trusted with the 2nd term? Netnayahu's Israel was as not very happy with him and Obama in the very beginning was talking very tough about Israel (University of Cairo). W/o his 2nd term there would be no treaty with Iran and there would be a veto of anti-Israel UN resolution.

It seems like George H.W. Bush must have resigned himself to not being reelected. What message was he sending by checking the watch during a debate? Was the message: Do not worry I am just going through the motions. Do not need to kill me.

The question is how come the neocons decided to trust GW Bush? Richard Perle went to Austin TX and announced that Bush ignorance of the world affairs was an advantage: an empty vessel that they can fill. Did he also mean that it will be easy to control him like sending him against Iraq to avenge his father?

GW Bush got coached and tutored by Prince Bandar in 1997:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall97bandargwbush

He lands in Austin, and is surprised when Governor Bush boards the plane before Bandar can disembark. Bush comes straight to the point: he is considering a run for the presidency, and though he already knows what his domestic agenda will be, says, "I don't have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy."

Finally, Bush says, "There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy." Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: "Can I give you one advice? If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn't, who likes Bandar or who doesn't. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you." Bandar's message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. "Never mind if you really want to be honest," Bandar continues. "This is not a confession booth. In the big boys' game, it's cutthroat, it's bloody and it's not pleasant."

Ivan , June 25, 2018 at 10:06 am GMT
@utu

Yes it is strange that the elder George Bush, who had exorcised the 'ghost of Vietnam', through his rout of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and earned a 90% approval rating, went on to lose to Clinton supposedly on account of the economy. The idiot Ross Perot, a capitalist weaned on the government teat had of course a role. But I thought that the elder Bush was a shoo-in. Then came Clinton, selling off the Americans' industrial birthright for a song to the Chinese and the kabuki theatre of the Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process'. In James Baker, one had the least sympathetic of Secretary of States to Israel in a long time

I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.

utu , June 25, 2018 at 5:41 pm GMT
@Ivan

I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.

Why the neocons called him a wimp?

In 1990 George H.W. Bush was very reluctant to go against Saddam Hussain. He seemed to really believe in the so called "peace dividends", base closings and scaling military down. And then Saddam Hussain with possible approval April Glaspie fucked it all up for him and us. It was Margaret Thatcher that twisted his arms to go against Saddam Hussein. Then when in the Dessert Storm he did not let escalate the plan and stopped the troops form going all the way into Iraq. The neocons did not like him.

Why we can call him a wimp?

In 1991 he decided to confront Israel but then backed off instead of escalating and letting the American people know that he needed their support against The Lobby and the sold out Congress.

[Jun 26, 2018] American Pravda The JFK Assassination, Part II Who Did It by Ron Unz

An excellent even headed analysis of events and major hypothesis about the assassination. Remarkable conclusion: " So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of ' Our American Pravda.' "
Notable quotes:
"... As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. ..."
"... Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media. ..."
"... Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. ..."
"... While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. ..."
"... A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened? ..."
"... While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president ..."
"... On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination. ..."
"... Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act. ..."
"... As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary. ..."
"... Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide. ..."
"... An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. ..."
"... if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace. ..."
"... If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce. ..."
"... Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up. ..."
"... A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so. ..."
"... Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago. ..."
"... The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. ..."
"... So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda." ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

A strong dam may hold back an immense quantity of water, but once it breaks the resulting flood may sweep aside everything in its path. I had spent nearly my entire life never doubting that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy nor that a different lone gunman took the life of his younger brother Robert a few years later. Once I came to accept that these were merely fairy tales widely disbelieved by many of the same political elites who publicly maintained them, I began considering other aspects of this important history, the most obvious being who was behind the conspiracy and what were their motives.

On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.

From such a considerable distance in time, a bird's-eye view may be a reasonable starting point, allowing us to focus on the few elements of the apparent conspiracy that seem reasonably well established. The most basic of these is the background of the individuals who appear to have been associated with the assassination, and the recent books by David Talbot and James W. Douglass effectively summarize much of the evidence accumulated over the decades by an army of diligent assassination researchers. Most of the apparent conspirators seem to have had strong ties to organized crime, the CIA, or various anti-Castro activist groups, with considerable overlap across these categories. Oswald himself certainly fit this same profile although he was very likely the mere "patsy" that he claimed to be, as did Jack Ruby, the man who quickly silenced him and whose ties to the criminal underworld were long and extensive.

ORDER IT NOW

An unusual chain of events provided some of the strongest evidence of CIA involvement. Victor Marchetti, a career CIA officer, had risen to become Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, a position of some importance, before resigning in 1969 over policy differences. Although he fought a long battle with government censors over his book, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence , he retained close ties with many former agency colleagues.

During the 1970s, the revelations of the Senate Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations had subjected the CIA to a great deal of negative public scrutiny, and there were growing suspicions of possible CIA links to JFK's assassination. In 1978 longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues. Marchetti published the resulting story in The Spotlight , a weekly national tabloid newspaper operated by Liberty Lobby, a rightwing populist organization based in DC. Although almost totally shunned by the mainstream media, The Spotlight was then at the peak of its influence, having almost 400,000 subscribers, as large a readership as the combined total of The New Republic , The Nation , and National Review .

Marchetti's article suggested that Hunt had actually been in Dallas during the assassination, resulting in a libel lawsuit with potential damages large enough to bankrupt the publication. Longtime JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane became aware of the situation and volunteered his services to Liberty Lobby, hoping to use the legal proceedings, including the discovery process and subpoena power, as a means of securing additional evidence on the assassination, and after various court rulings and appeals, the case finally came to trial in 1985.

ORDER IT NOW

As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. And although Hunt continued for decades to totally deny any connection with the assassination, near the end of his life he made a series of video-taped interviews in which he admitted that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination and named several of the other conspirators, while also maintaining that his own role had been merely peripheral. Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media.

Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. Therefore, there is a natural tendency to regard such animosity as the central factor behind the assassination, a perspective generally followed by Talbot, Douglass, and numerous other writers. They conclude that Kennedy died at the hands of harder-line anti-Communists, outraged over his perceived weakness regarding Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam, sentiments that were certainly widespread within right-wing political circles at the height of the Cold War.

While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. So long as all the conspirators were agreed on Kennedy's elimination, there was no need for an absolute uniformity of motive. Indeed, men who had long been involved in organized crime or clandestine intelligence operations were surely experienced in operational secrecy, and many of them may not have expected to know the identities, let alone the precise motives, of the men at the very top of the remarkable operation they were undertaking.

We must also sharply distinguish between the involvement of particular individuals and the involvement of an organization as an organization. For example, CIA Director John McCone was a Kennedy loyalist who had been appointed to clean house a couple of years before the assassination, and he surely was innocent of his patron's death. On the other hand, the very considerable evidence that numerous individual CIA intelligence officers and operatives participated in the action has naturally raised suspicions that some among their highest-ranking superiors were involved as well, perhaps even as the principal organizers of the conspiracy.

These reasonable speculations may have been magnified by elements of personal bias. Many of the prominent authors who have investigated the JFK assassination in recent years have been staunch liberals, and may have allowed their ideology to cloud their judgment. They often seek to locate the organizers of Kennedy's elimination among those rightwing figures whom they most dislike, even when the case is far from entirely plausible.

But consider the supposed motives of hard-line anti-Communists near the top of the national security hierarchy who supposedly may have organized Kennedy's elimination because he backed away from a full military solution in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis incidents. Were they really so absolutely sure that a President Johnson would be such an enormous improvement as to risk their lives and public standing to organize a full conspiracy to assassinate an American president?

A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened?

ORDER IT NOW

Based on extremely circumstantial evidence, Talbot's 2015 book The Devil's Chessboard , something of a sequel to Brothers , suggests that former longtime CIA Director Allan Dulles may have been the likely mastermind, with his motive being a mixture of his extreme Cold Warrior views and his personal anger at his 1961 dismissal from his position.

While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president , an unprecedented act utterly different in nature than trying to unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests? Surely, using his extensive media and intelligence contacts to leak embarrassing disclosures about JFK's notorious sexual escapades during the forthcoming presidential campaign would have been be a much safer means of attempting to achieve an equivalent result. And the same is true for J. Edgar Hoover and many of the other powerful Washington figures who hated Kennedy for similar reasons.

On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination.

Just as with the hard-line national security establishment, many organized crime leaders had grown outraged over the actions of the Kennedy Administration. During the late 1950s, Robert Kennedy had intensely targeted the mob for prosecution as chief counsel to the Senate Labor Rackets Committee. But during the 1960 election, family patriarch Joseph Kennedy used his own longstanding mafia connections to enlist their support for his older son's presidential campaign, and by all accounts the votes stolen by the corrupt mob-dominated political machines in Chicago and elsewhere helped put JFK in the White House, along with Robert Kennedy as his Attorney General. Frank Sinatra, an enthusiastic Kennedy supporter, had also helped facilitate this arrangement by using his influence with skeptical mob leaders.

However, instead of repaying such crucial election support with political favors, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, perhaps ignorant of any bargain, soon unleashed an all-out war against organized crime, far more serious than anything previously mounted at the federal level, and the crime bosses regarded this as a back-stabbing betrayal by the new administration. Once Joseph Kennedy was felled by an incapacitating stroke in late 1961, they also lost any hope that he would use his influence to enforce the deals he had struck the previous year. FBI wiretaps reveal that mafia leader Sam Giancana decided to have Sinatra killed for his role in this failed bargain, only sparing the singer's life when he considered how much he personally loved the voice of one of the most famous Italian-Americans of the 20th century.

These organized crime leaders and some of their close associates such as Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa certainly developed a bitter hatred toward the Kennedys, and this has naturally led some authors to point to the mafia as the likely organizers of the assassination, but I find this quite unlikely. For many decades, American crime bosses had had a complex and varied relationship with political figures, who might sometimes be their allies and at other times their persecutors, and surely there must have been many betrayals over the years. However, I am not aware of a single case in which any even moderately prominent political figure on the national stage was ever targeted for assassination, and it seems quite unlikely that the sole exception would be a popular president, whom they would have likely regarded as being completely out of their league. On the other hand, if individuals who ranked high in Kennedy's own DC political sphere set in motion a plot to eliminate him, they might have found it easy to enlist the enthusiastic cooperation of various mafia leaders.

Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act.

If a husband or wife is found murdered, with no obvious suspect or motive at hand, the normal response of the police is to carefully investigate the surviving spouse, and quite often this suspicion proves correct. Similarly, if you read in your newspapers that in some obscure Third World country two bitterly hostile leaders, both having unpronounceable names, had been sharing supreme political power until one was suddenly struck down in a mysterious assassination by unknown conspirators, your thoughts would certainly move in an obvious direction. Most Americans in the early 1960s did not perceive their own country's politics in such a light, but perhaps they were mistaken. As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary.

The two Talbot books and the one by Douglass, totaling some 1500 pages, devote merely a few paragraphs to any suspicions of Johnson's involvement. Talbot's first book reports that immediately after the assassination, the vice president had expressed a frantic concern to his personal aides that a military coup might be in progress or a world war breaking out, and suggests that these few casual words demonstrate his obvious innocence, although a more cynical observer might wonder if those remarks had been uttered for exactly that reason. Talbot's second book actually quotes an apparent low-level conspirator as claiming that Johnson had personally signed off on the plot and admits that Hunt believed the same thing, but treats such unsubstantiated accusations with considerable skepticism, before adding a single sentence acknowledging that Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice. Douglass and Peter Dale Scott, author of the influential 1993 book Deep Politics and the Death of JFK , apparently seem never to have even entertained the possibility.

Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence. Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.

Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensively hostile personal rivals, but there seem to have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures in JFK's government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.

An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot's strong reputation, his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and attracted The Free Press as his very respectable publisher, while later drawing a strongly positive review by a leading academic scholar in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and an hour long television segment broadcast on C-Span Booknotes . But if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace.

However, if we cast off these distorting ideological blinders and the practical considerations of American publishing, the prima facie case for Johnson's involvement seems quite compelling.

Consider a very simple point. If a president is struck down by an unknown group of conspirators, his successor would normally have had the strongest possible incentive to track them down lest he might become their next victim. Yet Johnson did nothing, appointing the Warren Commission that covered up the entire matter, laying the blame upon an erratic "lone gunman" conveniently dead. This would seem remarkably odd behavior for an innocent LBJ. This conclusion does not demand that Johnson was the mastermind, nor even an active participant, but it raises a very strong suspicion that he at least had had some awareness of the plot, and enjoyed a good personal relationship with some of the principals.

A similar conclusion is supported by a converse analysis. If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce.

Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up.

ORDER IT NOW

But the specific details of Johnson's career and his political situation in late 1963 greatly strengthen these entirely generic arguments. A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so.

Among other things, Stone gathers together an enormous wealth of persuasive information regarding Johnson's decades of extremely corrupt and criminal practices in Texas, including fairly plausible claims that these may have included several murders. In one bizarre 1961 incident that strangely foreshadows the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" finding, a federal government inspector investigating a major Texas corruption scheme involving a close LBJ ally was found dead, shot five times in the chest and abdomen by a rifle, but the death was officially ruled a "suicide" by the local authorities, and that conclusion was reported with a straight face in the pages of the Washington Post .

Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago.

ORDER IT NOW

The Dark Side of Camelot strongly suggest that personal blackmail was a greater factor than geographical ticket-balancing. In any event, Kennedy's paper-thin 1960 victory would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column, and election fraud there by Johnson's powerful political machine seems almost certainly to have been an important factor.

Under such circumstances, Johnson naturally expected to play a major role in the new administration, and he even issued grandiose demands for a huge political portfolio, but instead he found himself immediately sidelined and treated with complete disdain, soon becoming a forlorn figure with no authority or influence. As time went by, the Kennedys made plans to get rid of him, and just a few days before the assassination, they were already discussing whom to place on the reelection ticket in his stead. Much of Johnson's long record of extreme corruption both in Texas and in DC was coming to light following the fall of Bobby Baker, his key political henchman, and with strong Kennedy encouragement, Life Magazine was preparing a huge expose of his sordid and often criminal history, laying the basis for his prosecution and perhaps a lengthy prison sentence. By mid-November 1963, Johnson seemed a desperate political figure at the absolute end of his rope, but a week later he was the president of the United States, and all those swirling scandals were suddenly forgotten. Stone even claims that the huge block of magazine space reserved for the Johnson expose was instead filled by the JFK assassination story.

Aside from effectively documenting Johnson's sordid personal history and the looming destruction he faced at the hands of the Kennedys in late 1963, Stone also adds numerous fascinating pieces of personal testimony, which may or may not be reliable. According to him, as his mentor Nixon was watching the scene at the Dallas police station where Jack Ruby shot Oswald, Nixon immediately turned as white as a ghost, explaining that he had personally known the gunman under his birth-name of Rubenstein. While working on a House Committee in 1947, Nixon had been advised by a close ally and prominent mob-lawyer to hire Ruby as an investigator, being told that "he was one of Lyndon Johnson's boys." Stone also claims that Nixon once emphasized that although he had long sought the presidency, unlike Johnson "I wasn't willing to kill for it." He further reports that Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and numerous other prominent political figures in DC were absolutely convinced of Johnson's direct involvement in the assassination..

Stone has spent more than a half-century as a ruthless political operative, a position that provided him with unique personal access to individuals who participated in the great events of the past, but one that also carries the less than totally candid reputation of that profession, and individuals must carefully weigh these conflicting factors against each other. Personally, I tend to credit most of the eyewitness stories he provides. But even readers who remain entirely skeptical should find useful the large collection of secondary source references to the sordid details of LBJ's history that the book provides.

Finally, a seemingly unrelated historical incident had originally raised my own suspicions of Johnson's involvement.

U.S.S. Liberty , our most advanced intelligence-gathering ship, to remain offshore in international waters and closely monitor the military situation. There have been published claims that he had granted Israel a green-light for its preemptive attack, but fearful of risking a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet patrons of Syria and Egypt, had strictly circumscribed the limits of the military operation, sending the Liberty to keep an eye on developments and perhaps also to "show Israel who was boss."

Whether or not this reconstruction is correct, the Israelis soon launched an all-out attack on the nearly defenseless ship despite the large American flag it was flying, deploying attack jets and torpedo boats to sink the vessel during an assault that lasted several hours, while machine-gunning the lifeboats to ensure that there would be no survivors. The first stage of the attack had targeted the main communications antenna, and its destruction together with heavy Israeli jamming prevented any communications with other U.S. naval forces in the region..

Liberty and drive off the attackers, each time they were recalled, apparently upon direct orders from the highest authorities of the U.S. government. Once the Israelis learned that word of the situation had reached other U.S. forces, they soon discontinued their attack, and the heavily-damaged Liberty eventually limped into port, with over 200 dead and wounded sailors and NSA signal operators, representing the greatest loss of American servicemen in any naval incident since World War II.

ORDER IT NOWW

Liberty survivor, risked severe legal consequences and published Assault on the Liberty in 1979 .

As it happened, NSA intercepts of Israeli communications between the attacking jets and Tel Aviv, translated from the Hebrew, fully confirmed that the attack had been entirely deliberate, and since many of the dead and wounded were NSA employees, the suppression of these facts greatly rankled their colleagues. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan, later shrewdly circumvented the restrictions of his political masters by making those incriminating intercepts part of the standard curriculum of the Sigint training program required for all intelligence officers.

In 2007 an unusual set of circumstances finally broke the thirty year blackout in the mainstream media. Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the Tribune Company Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune , investing merely a sliver of his own money, with the bulk of the financing coming from the pension funds of the company he was acquiring. Widely heralded as "the grave dancer" for his shrewd financial investments, Zell publicly boasted that the deal gave him nearly all of the upside potential of the company, while he bore relatively little of the risk. Such an approach proved wise since the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed, the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country's largest and most prestigious newspapers. Perhaps coincidentally, just as this business turmoil hit in late 2007, the Tribune ran a massive 5,500 word storyy Liberty attack, representing the first and only time such a comprehensive account of the true facts has ever appeared in the mainstream media.

By all accounts, Johnson was an individual of towering personal ego, and when I read the article, I was struck by the extent of his astonishing subservience to the Jewish state. The influence of campaign donations and favorable media coverage seemed completely insufficient to explain his reaction to an incident that had cost the lives of so many American servicemen. I began to wonder if Israel might have played an extraordinarily powerful political trump-card, thereby showing LBJ "who was really boss," and once I discovered the reality of the JFK assassination conspiracy a year or two later, I suspected I knew what that trump-card might have been. Over the years, I had become quite friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, and the next time we had lunch I outlined my ideas. Although he had always casually dismissed JFK conspiracy theories as total nonsense, he found my hypothesis quite intriguing.

Liberty incident certainly demonstrated the exceptionally close relationship between President Johnson and the government of Israel, as well as the willingness of the mainstream media to spend decades hiding events of the most remarkable nature if they might tread on particular toes.

These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.

For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960 election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy, with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.

ORDER IT NOW

The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy described the extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel to allow international inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona, and thereby prevent its use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered similar ground.

Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political conflict between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made nuclear non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John McCone, Kennedy's choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy Commission under Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium..

ORDER IT NOW

The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year.

Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel had previously documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed itself following Kennedy's assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at the time.

Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible motive. Although this analysis seems largely correct, America's behavior towards Israel and its nuclear weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern..

An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies. During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group of wealthy Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered enormous financial support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy. Kennedy managed to fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident so troubling that the next morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his closest friends, and expressed his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under the control of partisans of a foreign power, promising that if he became president, he would rectify that situation. And indeed, once he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney General, the latter initiated a major legal effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves as foreign agents, which would have drastically reduced their power and influence. But after JFK's death, this project was quickly abandoned, and as part of the settlement, the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to reconstitute itself as AIPAC.

ORDER IT NOW

Final Judgment went through a number of a reprintings following its original 1994 appearance, and by the sixth edition released in 2004, had grown to over 650 pages, including numerous long appendices and over 1100 footnotes, the overwhelming majority of these referencing fully mainstream sources. The body of the text was merely serviceable in organization and polish, reflecting the total boycott by all publishers, mainstream or alternative, but I found the contents themselves remarkable and generally quite compelling. Despite the most extreme blackout by all media outlets, the book sold more than 40,000 copies over the years, making it something of an underground bestseller, and surely bringing it to the attention of everyone in the JFK assassination research community, though apparently almost none of them were willing to mention its existence. I suspect these other writers realized that even any mere acknowledgement of the existence of the book, if only to ridicule or dismiss it, might prove fatal to their media and publishing career. Piper himself died in 2015, aged 54, suffering from the health problems and heavy-drinking often associated with grim poverty, and other journalists may have been reluctant to risk that same dismal fate.

As an example of this strange situation, the bibliography of Talbot's 2005 book contains almost 140 entries, some rather obscure, but has no space for Final Judgment , nor does his very comprehensive index include any entry for "Jews" or "Israel." Indeed, at one point he very delicately characterizes Sen. Robert Kennedy's entirely Jewish senior staff by stating "There was not a Catholic among them." His 2015 sequel is equally circumspect, and although the index does contain numerous entries pertaining to Jews, all these references are in regards to World War II and the Nazis, including his discussion of the alleged Nazi ties of Allen Dulles, his principal bête noire . Stone's book, while fearlessly convicting President Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes "Jews" and "Israel" from the long index and Final Judgment from the bibliography, and Douglass's book follows this same pattern.

Furthermore, the extreme concerns that the Piper Hypothesis seems to have provoked among JFK assassination researchers may explain a strange anomaly. Although Mark Lane was himself of Jewish origins and left-wing roots, after his victory for Liberty Lobby in the Hunt libel trial, he spent many years associated with that organization in a legal capacity, and apparently became quite friendly with Piper, one of its leading writers. According to Piper, Lane told him that Final Judgment made "a solid case" for a major Mossad role in the assassination, and he viewed the theory as fully complementary to his own focus on CIA involvement. I suspect that concerns about these associations may explain why Lane was almost completely airbrushed out of the Douglass and 2007 Talbot books, and discussed in the second Talbot book only when his work was absolutely essential to Talbot's own analysis. By contrast, New York Times staff writers are hardly likely to be as versed in the lesser-known aspects of the JFK assassination research community, and being ignorant of this hidden controversy, they gave Lane the long and glowing obituaryy that his career fully warranted.

When weighing the possible suspects for a given crime, considering their past pattern of behavior is often a helpful approach. As discussed above, I can think of no historical example in which organized crime initiated a serious assassination attempt against any American political figure even moderately prominent on the national stage. And despite a few suspicions here and there, the same applies to the CIA.

By contrast, the Israeli Mossad and the Zionist groups that preceded the establishment of the Jewish state seem to have had a very long track record of assassinations, including those of high-ranking political figures who might normally be regarded as inviolate. Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated in 1944 and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator sent to help resolve the first Arab-Israel war, suffered the same fate in September 1948. Not even an American president was entirely free of such risks, and Piper notes that the memoirs of Harry Truman's daughter Margaret reveal that Zionist militants had tried to assassinate her father using a letter laced with toxic chemicals in 1947 when they believed he was dragging his heels in supporting Israel, although that failed attempt was never made public. The Zionist faction responsible for all of these incidents was led by Yitzhak Shamir, who later became a leader of Mossad and director of its assassination program during the 1960s, before eventually becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1986.

ORDER IT NOW

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by journalist Ronen Bergman suggests that no other country in the world may have so regularly employed assassination as a standard tool of state policy.

ORDER IT NOWW

There are other notable elements that tend to support the Piper Hypothesis. Once we accept the existence of a JFK assassination conspiracy, the one individual who is virtually certain to have been a participant was Jack Ruby, and his organized crime ties were almost entirely to the huge but rarely-mentioned Jewish wing of that enterprise, presided over by Meyer Lansky, an extremely fervent supporter of Israel. Ruby himself had particularly strong connections with Lansky lieutenant Mickey Cohen, who dominated the Los Angeles underworld and had been personally involved in gun-running to Israel prior to the 1948 war. Indeed, according to Dallas rabbi Hillel Silverman , Ruby had privately explained his killing of Oswald by saying "I did it for the Jewish people."

JFK film should also be mentioned. Arnon Milchan, the wealthy Hollywood producer who backed the project, was not only an Israeli citizen, but had also reportedly played a central role in the enormous espionage projectt to divert American technology and materials to Israel's nuclear weapons project, the exact undertaking that the Kennedy Administration had made such efforts to block. Milchan has even sometimes been described as "the Israeli James Bond." JFK scrupulously avoided presenting any of the details that Piper later regarded as initial clues to an Israeli dimension, instead seeming to finger America's fanatic home-grown anti-Communist movement and the Cold War leadership of the military-industrial complex as the guilty parties.

Summarizing over 300,000 words of Piper's history and analysis in just a few paragraphs is obviously an impossible undertaking, but the above discussion provides a reasonable taste of the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence mustered in favor of the Piper Hypothesis..

Final Judgment struck me as quite persuasive, a good fraction of the names and references were unfamiliar, and I simply do not have the background to assess their credibility, nor whether the description of the material presented is accurate.

Under normal circumstances, I would turn to the reviews or critiques produced by other authors, and comparing them against Piper's claims, then decide which argument seemed the stronger. But although Final Judgment was published a quarter-century ago, the near-absolute blanket of silence surrounding the Piper Hypothesis, especially from the more influential and credible researchers, renders this impossible.

However, Piper's inability to secure any regular publisher and the widespread efforts to smother his theory out of existence, have had an ironic consequence. Since the book went out of print years ago, I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases..

Final Judgment The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 310,000 Words

This edition actually incorporates several much shorter works, originally published separately. One of these, consisting of an extended Q&A, describes the genesis of the idea and answers numerous questions surrounding it, and for some readers might represent a better starting point.

Default Judgment Questions, Answers & Reflections About the Crime of the Century Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 48,000 Words

There are also numerous extended Piper interviews or presentations easily available on YouTube, and when I watched two or three of them a couple of years ago, I thought he effectively summarized many of his main arguments, but I cannot remember which ones they were.

The Kennedy assassination surely ranks as one of the most dramatic and heavily reported events of the twentieth century, yet the overwhelming evidence that our president died at the hands of a conspiracy rather than an eccentric "lone gunman" was almost entirely suppressed by our mainstream media during the decades that followed, with endless ridicule and opprobrium heaped on many of the stubborn truth-tellers. Indeed, the very term "conspiracy theory" soon became a standard slur aimed against all those who sharply questioned establishmentarian narratives, and there is strong evidence that such pejorative use was deliberately promoted by government agencies concerned that so much of the American citizenry was growing skeptical of the implausible cover story presented by the Warren Commission. But despite all these efforts, the period may mark the inflection point at which public trust in our national media began its precipitous decline. Once an individual concludes that the media lied about something as monumental as the JFK assassination, he naturally begins to wonder what other lies may be out there.

Although I now consider the case for an assassination conspiracy overwhelming, I think that the passage of so many decades has removed any real hope of reaching a firm conclusion about the identities of the main organizers or their motives. Those who disagree with this negative assessment are free to continue sifting the enormous mountain of complex historical evidence and debating their conclusions with others having similar interests.

However, among the cast of major suspects, I think that the most likely participant by far was Lyndon Johnson, based on any reasonable assessment of means, motive, and opportunity, as well as the enormous role he obviously must have played in facilitating the subsequent Warren Commission cover-up. Yet although such an obvious suspect must surely have been immediately apparent to any observer, Johnson seems to have received only a rather thin slice of the attention that books regularly directed to other, far less plausible suspects. So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.

Final Judgment provided an enormous mass of circumstantial evidence suggesting a major, even dominant, role for the Israeli Mossad in organizing the elimination of both our 35rd president and also his younger brother, a scenario that seems second in likelihood only to that of Johnson's involvement. Yet Piper's hundreds of thousands of words of analysis have seemingly vanished into the ether, with very few of the major conspiracy researchers even willing to admit their awareness of a shocking book that sold over 40,000 copies, almost entirely by underground word-of-mouth.

So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda."

[Jun 26, 2018] Interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Alarmist , June 25, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT

I'm reminded of an old joke:

Q: Who fired the shot that killed Mussolini?
A: A thousand Italian marksmen.

Johnson has been my perennial favourite as the person who had the most to gain, but he could not have done it without his Texas machinery, not the least of which was KBR, and they certainly had a lot to gain by elevating their boy to the pinnacle of power if the rumours, that JFK planned to scale back in Viet Nam, were true. Coincidence that it happened in Dallas? Hardly, in that scenario.

Other interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush, who, unlike most Americans, can't quite remember where he was when the President was shot. Was he behind it? Almost certainly not, but he may have been an unwitting co-conspirator by doing something tangentially connected, e.g. delivering cash. This is pure speculation, but it is interesting that he rose out of relative obscurity to become a Texas oilman, partnered with a former CIA operative, with oil interests in a number of international hotspots, and that formed the basis for him to build a fortune as well as launch a long and storied political career that saw him elected to Congress, then appointed to the head of the CIA, and ultimately crowned as President.

I particularly loved it when Trump tried to connect Ted Cruz's father to Oswald. It is not entirely out of the question, given his father, while a anti-Batista rebel turned refugee-student at the U of Texas might have crossed paths with Oswald while in Texas .

Yes, all roads seem to lead to Texas, except for that one that goes to NOLA, but that isn's so far from TX, and it seems like the kind of place oil industry types might go to cat around and conspire on a coup. It's also one of the few places in the South where Israelis might not appear to be so out of place.

As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?

[Jun 26, 2018] The cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting possibilities, though.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Abe , Website June 25, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT

Very nice. Just one thing, though- anyone who was an adult during the Cold War understands the immense importance of propaganda and 'optics' as they say now. In 1981 the French Communist Party won 15% of the Presidential vote. Together with the Socilaist Party that was a combined 40%.

Much of what constituted American' political theater' in the Cold War era consisted of 'double bank-shot' efforts to convince a somewhat cold and borderline hostile European public to support the trans-Atlantic alliance and the American system which underlay it, a difficult proposition given that European leftists were ideologically opposed to America's capitalist system, while seemingly natural-ally European rightists were often repulsed by the gauche nature of American culture, critical of unrestrained 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, plus resentful of American pop-cultural 'imperialism' as well.

In such a climate the cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting possibilities, though.

[Jun 26, 2018] Why Trump delayed release of the Kennedy files yet again

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Si1ver1ock , June 25, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT

Something to consider is that these people in the intelligence agencies are supposed to protect America , but they can't even spot an assassination when it occurs right under their noses with a pile of evidence stacked to the ceiling. The majority of Americans can see it, but not the people tasked with "keeping us safe." WTF?

In the RFK assassination we have video and photos of CIA assassins in the hotel when it occurs, but they can't see that either.

We have endless crime shows on TV with forensic experts tracking killers, but our real law enforcement officials can't see anything wrong with the way WTC building 7 implodes.

We are talking about treason and it is ongoing, not simply in the past. Trump delayed release of the Kennedy files yet again.

Who killed RFK?

Eighthman , June 25, 2018 at 6:36 pm GMT
A remote viewer psychic came up with an interesting notion as to why JFK was murdered. The power brokers believed he was reckless and a danger to the whole world.

It's a miracle that the Cuban missile crisis didn't end the world. USSR sub commanders had immediate authority to use nuclear weapons if attacked – and they were depth charged.

It may have been the icing on the cake.

[Jun 26, 2018] LJB and a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help. They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

nickels , June 25, 2018 at 8:30 pm GMT

LBJ had a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help. They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived:
If this is to be believed, the Birch society was in bed with the Zio crew, which might be believable, because the crusade against Russia was mostly utilizing the bitterness of the Trotskyites against Stalin's siezure of the Russian state, and thus a natural alliance between the Zio and Birch groups:

http://www.dcdave.com/article4/050308.htm

Details on the Hunt crew:

https://stevenhager420.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/h-l-hunt-is-a-key-to-the-jfk-assassination/

Si1ver1ock , June 25, 2018 at 9:46 pm GMT

On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion.

Perhaps. One thing that becomes more clear over time is who benefited. Look closely at those who were put into positions to enable the coverup, people like George Joannides and Richard Helms. Who was promoted?

The Israel angle is interesting, but Israel doesn't work for me. My government owes me an explanation. They have a duty to uphold the constitution. They swear an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. It is their duty to protect America from All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

[Jun 26, 2018] Autopsy controversy

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Paul Jolliffe , June 26, 2018 at 1:23 am GMT

@Ivan2

I agree.

The late Harold Weisberg once told me exactly the same thing: figuring out precisely who was in control of the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of 11/22/63 was the key to unraveling the cover-up.

U. S. Military authorities ran that thing and made every single damned decision. (Not RFK or Jacqueline Kennedy.)

Hell, there is credible, provocative and reasonably persuasive evidence the no less a figure than the legendary USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay flew in to Bethesda and was playing a major role in directing the autopsy.

The (suspiciously undated) autopsy report was re-written after Ruby shot "Oswald" on Sunday morning, and the original "draft notes" were burned. The hand-written version was then edited with very significant changes, most infamously the original wording that JFK had a "puncture" wound in his neck – WHICH MEANT A SHOT FROM THE FRONT! – was changed in the typed version as "much smaller".

These changes were not because Humes, Boswell and Finck demanded them. These changes were done at the behest of military brass, for reasons known only to themselves.

The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S. Military.

By the way, LeMay was the inspiration for the General Buck Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove".

[Jun 26, 2018] Interesting similarities berween JFK assasination and 9/11

Notable quotes:
"... The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

utu , June 25, 2018 at 8:29 pm GMT

@Buzz Mohawk

While commenting at the Part I I had similar thoughts concerning the 9/11 as you. The preponderance of mutually contradictory technical theories of JFK assassination completely detracted anybody from looking at the qui bono which inevitably would lead to Israel.

It occurred to me that 9/11 may share a similar fate.

This thought was very depressing. Relatively recently we have learned about the term of the 'cognitive infiltration' from Cass Sustain. It seems clear to me that exactly this cognitive infiltrations were successfully carried out in the case of JFK truthers.

Ron Unz , June 25, 2018 at 11:46 pm GMT
In writing my article, I'd forgotten to mention that in 1946 Zionist groups led by future Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had apparently planned to assassinate British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. There's a link to a 2003 article from the Daily Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1430766/Jewish-groups-plotted-to-kill-Bevin.html

Interestingly enough, the British government files also claim that an American Jewish activist named Rabbi Korff planned to organize some sort of aerial terrorist bombing attack against London around the same time. Korff later enjoyed a moment of considerable fame as a very high-profile supporter of President Richard Nixon shortly before his resignation during the Watergate Scandal.

renfro , June 25, 2018 at 11:56 pm GMT

I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.

Great ! -- thanks, have not read this before.

Sean Sean Sean , June 25, 2018 at 11:59 pm GMT
@Sean

"I really doubt that anyone, even the US vice president or director of the CIA has the authority to order anything like a political assassination of a sitting President."

Authority is not the word you're looking for. The appropriate term, depending on your point of view, is either absolute sovereignty or impunity. A US Secretary of State formally defined sovereignty in absolute life-and-death terms repudiated two millenia ago by the Germanic tribes of pre-modern Europe. The entire world has negated this viewpoint by acclamation, so the USA's a throwback.

In universally-acknowledged law, sovereignty is responsibility. But the US government thinks state responsibility is bullshit, and always did do. The US government has been assiduously undermining it ever since WWII. The US fights tooth and nail to make sure its citizens have no recourse to actions of the state, lawful or not.

Congress wrote absolute sovereignty into municipal law in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, various bureaucratic loopholes, and secret confidential legal pretexts. They gave it to CIA. The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets . So you misunderstand, or misrepresent, the government bureaucracy when you imagine that there's that someone CIA would be scared to kill. They do what they want. And you do what they tell you to, or else.

lysias , June 26, 2018 at 12:01 am GMT
Almost certainly what gave the conspirators control over what was said in the U.S. media was Operation Mockingbird. That was (is?) a CIA operation.
utu , June 26, 2018 at 12:01 am GMT
Here is a commenter at Mondoweiss who brings up many assassinations linked to Israel.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/president-inspections-facility/
July 28, 2015, 3:40 am

What we have in the case of the Zionist movement and Israel is a pattern of a serial perpetrator of murder, mass murder and terror. This is a well established fact. That pattern started well before the creation of Israel, see eg the murder of Jacob Israël de Haan on 30/6/1924 or the King David Hotel bombing on 22/7/1946. That murderous pattern continued after the creation of Israel, see for the early days for example the murder of Folke Bernadotte on 17/9/1948 and then read "Israel's sacred terrorism" based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary:

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/rokach.html

Since the early days of Zionism there are so many proven Zionist and Israeli state sponsored murders that it is hard to keep tracking them all. The murderous pattern of Israeli behaviour continues to the very recent time, think for example of the attampted assassination of Khaled Mashal on 25/9/1997, the car bomb killing Imad Mughniyah on 12/2/2008, the murder of Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman on 1/8/2008 (which was just recently proven by US documents to be an Israeli job), the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on 19/1/2010 or the recent serial murder of Iranian scientists.

The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan proves that the Zionist movement targeted also jews. It was not a single case. Naeim Giladi wrote in detail about his role as a Zionist in attacking Iraqi jews on behalf of Israel in his book: Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. We also know from things like Operation Susannah and the attempt to sink the USS Liberty that Israel also has already attacked US targets in the past.

Generally I'ld say Israeli murders and terrors fit in two motive categories: either Israel committed state sponsored murders to get rid of anactual or perceived enemy like Khaled Mashal or Imad Mughniyah or someone deemed otherwise harmful to Israeli interests like Folke Bernadotte, or Israel committed acts of terror and murder with the intention of blaming the crime on someone else, ie perpetraiting "false flag operations", like it was the case with attacking Iraqi jews or Operation Susannah. One regular motivation for Israeli false flag ops was to enlist the US in fighting Israel's real or perceived enemies, ie starting US-led wars of aggression in the service of Israel. AIPAC/WINEP operatives publicly talk about using such "options" in the service of starting wars Israel wanted to get started:

A typical Israeli method to ensure false blame was faking signal intelligence. Victor Ostrovsky wrote about how the Mossad did falsely blame Libya of terror in his time with radio signal boxes placed by the Mossad in Libya for that purpose. In the case of the Ghouta chemical false flag terror attack, Israel simply provided the US with faked signal intelligence, essentially saying to Obama: now you must go to war, because we proved hereby that Syria crossed your chemical red lines.

So, now comes the funny thing. Despite this whole record of serial Israeli murder, terror and false flag terror targeting likewise enemies and friends, terrorists and innocents, Arabs and Westerners, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Syrians and Americans, and clear motives for Israel to perpetrate the crimes, there still exists a big taboo of talking about and investigating a possible Israeli sponsorship of the JFK murder and 9/11. It's even deemed anti-semitic to speak about this.

redmudhooch , June 26, 2018 at 12:05 am GMT
@utu

What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic

This is the original article:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html

redmudhooch , June 26, 2018 at 12:22 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I think the "neocons" tried to get their wars started under Clinton with the USS Cole attack October 12 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor, that they also blamed on Al-Qaeda.
Sounds very similar to USS Liberty eh? Same people again, same story .
I guess Clinton refused to go along even after ((((Lewinsky))) sex blackmail, and false flag attack on USS Cole. So they knew they had to get a Republican into office, thats why there was such a fuss about that election, should also tell you where the Supreme Court stands
9/11, WTC planning, demolition rigging, probably started soon after USS Cole false flag.
It all adds up when you start thinking about it.
and I don't doubt Johnson played a huge role, he obviously did, I also believe some in CIA played a role as well as in Military/MIC, and probably even Wall St/Banking, Big Oil, that is what makes it a CONSPIRACY!
But I think the head honcho is Israel/Zionist intrests, and their plan of world domination.

JFK – The Speech That Killed Him

prusmc , Website June 26, 2018 at 12:33 am GMT
@nickels

I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

Ron Unz , June 26, 2018 at 1:33 am GMT
One important aspect of Piper's book is that his overwhelming focus on Israel and the Mossad provides a very helpful corrective to the CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force.

For example, in Appendix Six, Piper suggests that Mossad may have assassinated former CIA Director William Colby, as well as John Paisley, another former high-ranking CIA official:

http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/#appendix-six-retribution

I certainly don't know enough about these cases to comment, but the NSA is supposedly also a pretty powerful intelligence organization, and lots of NSA people were killed or wounded during the Liberty attack, with absolutely no apparent consequences. And if top CIA people could also occasionally be killed with relative impunity, maybe that organization also isn't really so all-powerful.

Furthermore, one of Piper's major arguments is that long-time CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton had effectively become a Mossad intelligence asset at least by the 1960s, and he seems to provide a great deal of circumstantial evidence in favor of this notion. Therefore, he points toward Angleton as the likely CIA figure who spearheaded the CIA involvement in the JFK assassination.

One nice thing about my HTML Book software is that it allows full text searches of the books in question, controlled by the little Search icon next to the Email button. Or you can use this link:

http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

Iris , Next New Comment June 26, 2018 at 2:08 am GMT
@Ron Unz

"..CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force."

The CIA was also the "easy" and "obvious" culprit after 9/11. It came under an incredible amount of criticism from the "courageous" media, and George Tenet, its director at the time, was almost forced to resign.

It turned out later that the CIA had previously warned G. Bush about the increased risks of terror attack, and that their warnings were dismissed by Rumsfeld and the NeoCons, who a contrario were never blamed for anything.

This really shows who is higher up the food chain.

Achilles , Next New Comment June 26, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT

Jack Ruby was running guns and ammunition from Galveston Bay to Fidel Castro's guerrillas in Cuba about 1957, a former poker-playing partner of the Dallas nightclub owner told The News Thursday.

James E. Beaird said he waited until 1966, almost three years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and "nothing had come out so I called them (FBI) just to find out why I was curious. However, they didn't see fit to even mention it to me again, so I never heard of anything they ever opened up on it."

Beaird said the FBI finally "sent a man out in 1976. I don't know why they did it then."

The FBI agent who interviewed Beaird in 1976 didn't mention in his report that Beaird had volunteered information about Ruby's gunrunning to the bureau in 1966. The report stated that since the 1963 assassination, "there had been so·much speculation as to possible foreign connections and he (Beaird) thought it better not to mention his knowledge of Jack Ruby in Kemah (southeast of Houston on Galveston Bay)."

The Warren Commission in 1964 investigated numerous allegations of gunrunning by Ruby but concluded that no factual information existed.

Beaird told the FBI that he "personally saw many boxes of new guns, including atltomatic rifles and handguns," stored in a 2-story house near the channel at Kemah and loaded on what looked like a 50-foot surplus military boat.

"He stated each time that the boat left with guns and ammunition, Jack Ruby was on the boat," the FBI report said.

Beaird, who was an automobile dealer in Houston from 1955 to 1957, said Ruby "was in it for the money. It wouldn't matter what side, just one that would pay him the most I don't even know who the ship belonged to. But he was in command of it. He went out every time it went. It was meeting a connection down there (in Cuba), that's all I ever heard."

Ruby would show up in Kemah, generally on weekends, to play poker and "just killing time until the boat was loaded," Beaird said, and usually was there not more than one or two hours.

"They loaded up at least twice while I was down there," be said. "Pickup trucks would carry it from the house over to this boat."

By 1959, Castro had taken control of Cuba and Ruby was beginning to switch sides as Castro threatened to force Mafia-backed professional gamblers out of the casinos in Havana.

Dallas Morning News, 18 Aug 1978

What was Ruby's connection to the splinter groups of left-over Cubans in Dallas? Was he selling them guns? Was he hiring them for odd jobs? Did he hear of the crazy violent commie anglo Oswald through his connections to these Cubans?

[Hide MORE]

What were these Israeli goats doing in Cuba shortly after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power? It turns out that Castro had taken notice of Israeli goats and was just waiting for the chance to taste their milk following the establishment in 1960 of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

"Fidel thought there were goats in Israel that produced milk like cows," recounted Clarita Malhi, who worked at the Cuban embassy in Israel. "He was really enamored by the technical progress Israel had made in the field of agriculture."

The Cuban ambassador in Israel was a Jewish millionaire revolutionary by the name of Ricardo Wolf (Ricardo Subirana y Lobo in Spanish), who decided to fulfill the dream of his boss who had sent him to Israel. The ambassador went looking for goats that "produced milk like cows" and could be shipped far across the ocean.

Yitzhak Zilber, a Cuban Jew and a member of Kibbutz Gaash, was chosen for the mission. Zilber, 89, sent Haaretz photos in which he is seen with the goats he found, waiting for a plane at the airport and travelling around Cuba.

Ultimately, when the goats for the mission were found, they were brought together at the airport, awaiting the moment when they could be airlifted to Cuba. An El Al plane landed in Israel from Cuba with new immigrants from the Cuban Jewish community who had decided to flee Castro's revolution. They came as part of an agreement under which Cuba effectively exchanged the immigrants for the goats.

The Haaretz archives contain a piece of information that might buttress the story about Castro and his Israeli goats. In an article in July 1961, it was reported that the Israeli Agriculture Ministry had sent an expert to Cuba to help the Cubans improve goat breeding.

Wolf, who was born in Germany, emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s and became a close associate of Castro. As a wealthy industrialist, he gave a large sum of money to finance the revolution. He later politely declined the offer of a cabinet position, but asked Castro to appoint him ambassador to Israel. Castro assented and Wolf arrived in the country in 1960 as Cuba's first – and only – ambassador. The trade involving the goats and the new immigrants was funded by Wolf personally.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-jews-for-goats-castro-s-secret-deal-with-israel-1.5475376

'Twas not ever thus. Not only did Cuba establish ties with nascent Israel in 1949, but Castro dispatched a key supporter, Ricardo Wolf, as his ambassador to Israel in 1960.

Dworin says Wolf, who made his fortune as a pioneer in the metal industry, helped finance the purchase of the yacht Granma, the cabin-cruiser built for 12 that ferried the Castro brothers, Che and 80 other revolutionaries from Mexico to Cuba in 1956 -- on the voyage that would culminate in the overthrow of Batista.

"What can I do to repay you?" Castro, once installed in power, asked Wolf, in Dworin's telling. "I want to be ambassador to Israel," he replied.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-our-woman-in-havana-asked-fidel-castro-to-the-synagogue-hanukkah-party/

Was Ricardo Subirana Y Lobo (Ricardo Wolf), a Cuban Jew and supporter of Castro, the bridge between Castro and Mossad? Castro originally offered Wolf the post of Minister of Finance in the communist government, but Wolf preferred to be Ambassador to Israel.

Kiza , Next New Comment June 26, 2018 at 3:08 am GMT
@Ron Unz

Hello Ron, I found your comment about growing up with the belief in the lone gunman official story interesting. I grew up in a communist country which was not part of the USSR block and I grew up with a belief in the official story that CIA was the main culprit in the JFK assassination although without a direct mention of LBJ. I would be interested to learn also what the official story inside the Eastern block was.

Even to this day, I have to admit that this official story was actually very close to the truth. So many years later and even after reading your high quality article I tend to believe that LBJ was heavily involved but at arms length distance, that CIA has done all of the ground work, that Mossad probably assisted and that Oswald did not even shoot let alone kill anyone.

Why is a local belief relevant? Well because whoever killed Kennedy tried to point blame at communists, those of USSR and Cuba. What I was lead to believe in this instance proves the old saying audi alteram partem – do not form any belief before you hear both sides. This applies to practically all strange events of history. Historical, geographical and ideological distance make quite a difference in the beliefs that we grow up with.

Next, the culprits would probably be mirrored in the case of 911, where the Israelis have done most of the ground work, whilst the dual citizens and the US agencies they control played the supporting and enabling role.

Obviously, the logistics of 911 dwarfs the logistics of the Kennedy assassinations, but it would be the same team, different era and with a different emphasis. The acts becoming more self-confident and brazen.

Ron Unz , June 26, 2018 at 3:12 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

The account you are responding to has Macnamara ordering back nuclear armed planes which obviously had nothing to do with seeing off Israeli fighters and gunboats.

The more "mainstream" account that has been widely reported is that squadrons of U.S. jets were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty, and then twice recalled based on top-level instructions from D.C.

I've sometimes seen another account floating around on the Internet that the Johnson and the Israelis had concocted a plan to have the latter sink the Liberty with all hands, after which Johnson would blame the attack on Egypt and launch a nuclear attack against Cairo in retaliation. Frankly, I find this scenario *extraordinarily* implausible, and until someone provides a credible source, I would just dismiss it. And by a "credible source" I mean something more than some random guy making the claim somewhere in some book.

[Jun 26, 2018] Was CIA and LBJ worked in tandem in the JFK assassination?

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Center for Study of the Obvious , June 25, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT

The 'bad-apples' disinformation relies on the idea that compartmentation and plausible deniability are incompatible with strict hierarchy. CIA lets a thousand flowers bloom when it makes a directive, but its assets are always strictly controlled with inducements, coercion, and compromise. The multiple JFK plots show CIA's telltale M.O. for important programs, not hordes of sneaky bad apples.

All the mafia-did-it disinformation relies on a sharp distinction between CIA and organized crime. Anywhere CIA is, they farm crime for agents and cutouts. Robert Kennedy Jr. makes this point in his book American Values (and that is why it sank without a ripple.)

And of course Johnson had foreknowledge. He was at Clint Murchison's party, in the little closed-door conclave where CIA green-lighted the coup. So was Rockefeller henchman John McCloy. CIA arranged to implicate lots of influential people.

The key point here is CIA impunity. CIA did it because CIA can get away with it. That makes Johnson a figurehead, not a potential threat.

Here's what we all have to face. All of us grew up under an autocratic CIA regime that hires and fires presidents, legislators, and judges. Kills them, too. They still kill or torture anyone they want. Ask Gina.

Heymrguda , June 25, 2018 at 2:50 pm GMT
I too have read Stone's book and, while he did not in any way "prove" that LBJ had JFK shot, he certainly laid out a plausible case for his involvement. Any one who has read Caro's series of books on LBJ will come away with the realization that he (Johnson) was capable of having him assassinated as well as having the means and the motivation. The man had no principles or scruples whatsoever.

I can't comment on any Israeli involvement, but praise for Ron Unz for adding his voice to those who believe LBJ almost had to have played a role in that event. Like others here, I was not a JFK fan either. But johnson's elevation to the presidency was an unparalleled disaster for the USA.

TonyVodvarka , June 25, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
The late Col. Fletcher Prouty was assigned to the Pentagon in charge of Air Force support of CIA operations in the years leading up to the assassination. His boss there was Gen. Edward Lansdale, nominally Air Force but actually undercover CIA, father of Special Forces and the engineer of the coup in the Philippines in the mid-fifties. Those familiar with the JFK treachery will recall the clear press photos of "the three tramps", men arrested in the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll, who were led away and never seen again. Two of those men were Howard Hunt (CIA) and Charles Harrelson (Texas mafia assassin). One of these photos shows a suited man passing by casually, seeming to reassure the three men. Col. Prouty, who worked closely with Lansdale for years, positively identified him and this was affirmed by Gen. "Brute" Krulak, who was at the time commander of MAAG in South Vietnam. The distinctive shape of his head and his West Point ring are clearly visible. Go to the website dedicated to Col. Prouty's works at http://www.prouty.org for this and much else directly from the horse's mouth. By the way, toward the end of the nineties, the only fingerprint on the sixth floor of the book depository that was not identified after the assassination was matched to Malcolm Wallace, Lindon Johnson's hitman, reportedly executing at least three murders for him.
TonyVodvarka , June 25, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
@Buzz Mohawk

Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group, which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will.

CanSpeccy , Website June 25, 2018 at 3:27 pm GMT

the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.

What pathetic bollocks. You should write for CNN.

If the doctors attending on Kennedy at the Parklands Hospital, men experienced with gunshot wounds, all agreed, as they did, that Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the front of his head, then he was not killed by bullets from the Texas School Book Depository window where Oswald is alleged to have been. Therefore, the Warren Commission Report is based on lies. In particular, a phony autopsy report and a rewriting of the autopsy report findings by none other than President-to-be, Gerald Ford. That's not a matter of plausibilities or possibilities, liklihoods or non-certainties. It's as hard evidence as you ever likely to get in a court of law.

But Israel didn't do it! LOL. Who said Israel did do it? Only some of the nutters that comment freely here.

What would be interesting, if anyone would take the trouble to do it, is to delve more deeply into the political connections of the people in the CIA who organized the crime. If LBJ was the greatest beneficiary, it is nevertheless likely that there were Republicans on side with the killing, otherwise the CIA would surely not have acted. That E. Howard Hunt, Mexico City CIA station chief at the time of the assassination appears to have been connected with the event through (a) Oswald's visit to the Mexico City CIA office, and (b) Hunt's alleged presence in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, suggests that Hunt's role in the Watergate burglary was to see what information the Democratic Party may have had relating to the assassination that could have been used to damage Richard Nixon in his run for re-election.

exiled off mainstreet , June 25, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
All of this seems pretty interesting and completes my suppositions as to what happened to JFK and RFK and who was responsible and, perhaps even more importantly, who benefited "cui bono" a usual criterion in determined who instigated a murder.
SunBakedSuburb , June 25, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT
" Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice."

Lyndon Johnson's long-standing friendship/strategic partnership with J. Edgar Hoover points to the "passive supporter" role. Act of Treason (1991), by Mark North, documents Hoover's knowledge of, but not active participation in, the JFK hit. Hoover's job was to provide bureaucratic support of the coup d'état and to ease his friend Lyndon into the White House.

The prime mover in the assassination was the Allen Dulles cabal at CIA: The presence of Lee Harvey Oswald speaks of James Angleton's involvement. But the details of the network that took the operational role still seems to be in question. There was that group of U.S. intelligence officers and Mafia figures that began during the second world war. And now the new research that suggests an Israeli role on one hand, and Fourth Reich elements on the other. (Fourth Reich elements being the Otto Skorzeny network known as Die Spinne or Odessa that had ties with MacArthur's WW2 intelligence chief Charles Willoughby.)

So the mystery continues. But however the network that assumed the operational role in the JFK hit was configured, Allen Dulles was the godfather.

Anonymous [336] Disclaimer , June 25, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
Jackie Kennedy thought Johnson was behind it. I believe Bobby Kennedy did too.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/jackie-kennedy-lyndon-b-johnson-jfk-murder

jdf , June 25, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
Nice summary of the salient points of the assassinations. A couple of things that did not get mentioned:
The "wink" as LBJ was being sworn in. It clinches it.
Marion Brown's statement that LBJ, her lover, told her well in advance that JFK was going to be killed.
Peter Dale Scott stated: The door to the assassination is through Jack Ruby.
Ruby's phone calls were looked at by the FBI and Justice Dept., and catalogued. Almost all were to Jewish mafia figures–not Italians. When the House Assassinations Committee asked for these transcripts, they were told they no longer existed! But old copies were eventually found. Someone in DOJ tried to scrub them from the records.
One of the best books on the assassination IMHO is Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation."
Piper's book is essential reading, but he focuses only on Israel and the Jewish connections. Because of its lack of "balance", it should not be read as a stand-alone treatise on the JFK assassination.
Among my top ten books are–admittedly a list long out of date:
On the Trail of the Assassins
The Last Investigation
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
JFK and the Unspeakable
Final Judgment (with above reservations)

Probably more important would be a list of books absolutely NOT to be read–among them Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."

As a general rule, you can consider ANYONE arguing that Unz is full of s$#t and Oswald did it as a crazed lone assassin, is a paid TROLL. The assassinations are grounded in solid research that has been going on since the 1970s, when I attended a four-hour lecture by David Lifton at SUNY Stony Brook–an event that literally toppled my world. It has never recovered.

Jinks , June 25, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
You might want to find a copy of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I think it is a really good read about a side story to the JFK assassination about the goings on in New Orleans and the CIA.
jinks , June 25, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

It matters only because the truth always matters, and until it is satisfied it will always be a pebble in the shoe. The past is only past because it has happened, but in its own strange way its always with us. Events that occurred 200 years ago affect today, as well as those events from 500 years ago. And sometimes things need to be covered up for very good reasons.

As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.

Ron Unz , June 25, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@JohnnyWalker123

You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed?

I very much doubt that. Johnson died at the beginning of 1973, a very widely despised and hated figure, and surely few people feared any retaliation much after that, let alone Talbot and Douglass writing forty years later.

I suspect there were several factors, mostly the ones I outlined in my discussion.

First, most JFK researchers were strong liberals or otherwise admired "Camelot," and it surely would have been very difficult for them to psychologically accept that most of JFK's top people were perfectly willing to continue working for LBJ, if the latter had murdered the former.

Also, "LBJ Killed JFK" might sound like such a ultra "crazy conspiracy theory" to publishers and editors who overwhelmingly may still believe that a "lone gunman" killed JFK. So writers who considered making such a claim might fear having their careers totally ruined. I think fear of humiliation, reputation-loss, and the resulting financial damage is a far greater factor than fear of physical harm.

Here's another factor. Having a vice president come to power by assassinating his predecessor is the sort of thing that just doesn't happen in developed First World countries. Offhand, I can't think of even a single case in any major country over the last couple of hundred years. It would probably be pretty embarrassing for even a Third World banana-republic. What respectable American historian would want to admit that the politics of our own country at the height of its international prestige during the early 1960s may have actually made Guatemala look like a shining example of orderly, constitutional government?

Dillon Sweeny , June 25, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@jinks

As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.

"Culture" is not a subset of "nation". The American culture has changed -- all culture changes in accordance with external influences. America, as a nation founded under a set of Enlightenment principles, has ended. There remains a huge morass/aggregation of conflicting cultures, overseen and manipulated by a horrificly corrupt government.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , June 25, 2018 at 7:32 pm GMT
Blood Money & Power by Barr McClennan

Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb

Both books claim Johnson killed Kennedy.

McClennan is the son of one of Johnson's attorneys

I read them both along with Piper's book.

They make a lot more sense that the right wing atmosphere of hate Dallas PD including officer Tippett another of Oswald's Victims and president bush & cia fbi secret service army navy Air Force departments of agriculture and every other government department and of course the man directing the military ambush by 15 shooters, umbrella man.

Have fun with your myths legends and fairy tales, naive credulous gullible idiots.

CanSpeccy , Website June 25, 2018 at 7:37 pm GMT

Nixon knew what happened to JFK who resisted.

The Warren Commission Report was a cover up. The evidence for that is clear for the reasons I have stated here .

And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, what had they to cover up? Government complicity in the assassination of JFK, obviously. So who, in particular, was involved. Well obviously that branch of government that does assassinations, the CIA. But that does not mean that the CIA went rogue.

The CIA serves the powers that be, so whatever the antagonism of some individuals within the Agency, the CIA would not have acted on the assassination of JFK without bipartisan political support.

LBJ, the obvious beneficiary, had every reason to give the CIA the nod, but someone on the other side of the aisle had to be complicit too. Who?

Well Nixon had been the Republican Presidential candidate in the previous election, so he was the effective head of the party and thus the man to go to.

As I argue here , Nixon's guilty knowledge of the assassination may have been the real cause of his downfall. Nixon's Vice President, Gerald R. Ford had been appointed to the Warren Commission by LBJ and it was he who made a critical falsification of that report, therby casting responsibility for the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald.

It is likely, therefore, that Ford had the goods on Nixon and blackmailed him into resignation over the Watergate inquiry.

utu , June 25, 2018 at 7:40 pm GMT
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/what-earth-would-prompt-newspaper-editor-call-obamas-assassination/332854/

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place , and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles ?

Where from did Mr. Andrew Adler, who was forced to resign later, get the idea of killing a president so he would be replaced with Israel friendly VP? Did Mr. Adler study JFK assassination and LBJ policy with respect to Israel? Or is it a common knowledge and common Jewish modus operandi: kill whoever does not like Israel? Do Jews think and talk about assassinating of American presidents who are unfriendly to Israel? Do Jews believe that the Deep Sate in Israel considers assassinations and act on it when necessary?

[Jun 26, 2018] The opposition media is created to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want silenced.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

j2 , June 25, 2018 at 9:44 am GMT

@JohnnyWalker123

"You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to distract from the "mastermind" assassin?"

You have the reason already in Maurice Joly's Dialogues. The opposition media is created to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want silenced. Even the opposition, which always picks up on everything, agrees with this issue, so it accepted by all. Much of the alternative media has nothing to fear as it is not alternative media in anything but appearance. But with the Internet it is getting harder to do this. Finally they fail.

j2 , June 25, 2018 at 10:00 am GMT
@The Alarmist

"As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?"

So, LBJ just wanted to promote Texas oil and to become the President, no special Israel connection? And the Israelis just joined the cabal and who can blame them?
I found it very interesting that young LBJ was helping in the Galveston project. Galveston somehow reminded me of Jacob Schiff. And I also found it fascinating that young Allan Dulles was the guy who produced the very copy of Joly's Dialogues from which Ohrana plagiarized the Protocols. Both were working for the dark side from their youth.

[Jun 26, 2018] Why lymo, which as acrime scene artifact was repaired so quickly

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website June 25, 2018 at 5:56 pm GMT

I recently learned of another smoking gun. After JFKs Limo arrived at Parkland hospital, many people looked it over and took photos. There was a bullet hole through the front windshield. It entered from the front, yet was never discussed afterwards by anyone. The Limo was hauled away to Washington within hours and secretly repaired. There are lots of links about this, such as:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

[Jun 26, 2018] See Col. L. Fletcher Prouty on why CIA hated JFK

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

MrTruth , June 25, 2018 at 9:06 am GMT

See Col. L. Fletcher Prouty videos and books on the deep background for why the CIA hated JFK.

http://www.prouty.org/

Prouty was the source for Mr. X in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Prouty was an air force pilot in WWII. He flew missions around the world and witnessed history as it happened. After WWII, he worked in the pentagon as a liaison officer between the military and the CIA. He saw the original documents authorizing military support of CIA operations around the world.

As Prouty explains it, throughout human history war was a means of killing the other guy and taking his stuff. The preparation for war and the prosecution of war provided an organizing principle for human society that gave people the motivation to develop their own societies, lest the other guy become more powerful than you and kill you.

As he describes it, with the detonation of atomic weapons at the end of WWII, conventional war was instantly understood to be obsolete. In any future conventional war, if one side was about to win a decisive victory, the potentially losing side would simply go nuclear, and everyone would lose.

With the end of conventional war, and the impossibility of nuclear war, the global power elite invented the proxy war as the new means for the continuation of war as an organizing principle of society. In the U.S., the CIA was the tool for starting and prosecuting proxy wars.

Prouty describes how, at the end of WWII, he was flying supply missions to Okinawa for the staging of the invasion of Japan. The military bases in Okinawa were overflowing with every conceivable type of materiel necessary to support more than a million man invasion.

After the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan had surrendered, Prouty claims that he asked a supply officer if they were just going to send all the supplies back to the states.

The officer said no. He said that all the materiel was going to be divided in half, and that half was going to Seoul, Korea, and that the other half was going to Hanoi, Vietnam. Prouty believes that by 1945 Korea and Vietnam had already been decided to be the sites of the first proxy wars, and that the CIA was already involved in planning the wars.

Kennedy was planning to dismantle the CIA, and Prouty recounts in his books, lectures, and videos how the JFK assassination reversed the course of history.

The JFK assassination is an endless rabbit hole of history. If you jump in, you won't come out the same way.

[Jun 26, 2018] Was Osvald a CIA agent?

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website June 25, 2018 at 4:31 am GMT

This article is a nice overview that explains the problem. There were many powerful groups who wanted Kennedy killed, and probably several plots were underway. Allow me to suggest "The Secret Team" by Col. Prouty to your reading list.

Your last post resulted in too many posts to read, but one pointed to an outstanding video of Lee Oswald's life, showing facts that make it clear he was a CIA operative. Note that after he returned from Russia after openly committing treason, he was never arrested, and granted a spousal visa for his Russian wife. That undeniable fact itself is proof he was a CIA plant. Oswald hoped to become an official CIA officer and federal employee, but remained a low-level paid operative until his death. Oswald expressed concern in New Orleans that operatives were considered disposable.

Anyway, I highly recommend this great video:

JohnnyWalker123 , June 25, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
Here's a picture that proves that Oswald and David Ferrie knew each other through the Civil Air Patrol.

https://isgp-studies.com/DL_1967_02_22_David_Ferrie_death

It also appears that Oswald may have known Clay Shaw. See quote below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Clay_Shaw#Later_findings,_and_CIA_revelations

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton (Louisiana) in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination".[65]

The CIA also admitted that Clay Shaw had worked for them in some capacity. See quote below.

During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[70] Like Shaw, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS by the mid-1970s.[70] [nb 1] In February 2003, the CIA released documents pertaining to an earlier inquiry from the Assassination Records Review Board about QKENCHANT, a CIA project used to provide security approvals on non-CIA personnel, that indicated Shaw had obtained a "five Agency" clearance in March 1949.[72]

More interesting information below.

New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews testified to the Warren Commission that while he was hospitalized for pneumonia, he received a call from "Clay Bertrand" the day after the assassination, asking him to fly to Dallas to represent Lee Harvey Oswald.[28][29] According to FBI reports, Andrews told them that this phone call from "Clay Bertrand" was a figment of his imagination.[30]

In his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison says that after a long search of the New Orleans French Quarter, his staff was informed by the bartender at the tavern "Cosimo's" that "Clay Bertrand" was the alias that Clay Shaw used. According to Garrison, the bartender felt it was no big secret and "my men began encountering one person after another in the French Quarter who confirmed that it was common knowledge that 'Clay Bertrand' was the name Clay Shaw went by."[\

So it appears likely that Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw knew each other. Which is sort of strange.

Then there's George de Mohrenschildt, a very complex and interesting character. I wonder if anyone here could tell me more about the nature of his relationship with Oswald.

JohnnyWalker123 , June 25, 2018 at 8:32 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I really liked Dark Journalist's analysis of Oswald. I think I posted this video in the other thread.

Oswald was certainly a CIA asset, much like the late Osama Bin Laden.

Milton , June 25, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT
I believe the Zionists in Israel placed the order and Freemasons in the American Deep State executed the order. It's also quite possible that Zionist terrorists did the actual shooting as they had the experience in killing Western high profile targets (Moyne, Bernadotte, King David Hotel bombing, etc) but more likely that elements of the Deep State in America who hated JFK did the actual shooting. In either case, Oswald was not lone-nut and the case is certainly not closed. We know this because Trump recently reclassified the sealed JFK assassination records which were mandated to be released in October, 2017. He stated that he did so to protect "national security" (aka protect the Deep State and Israel) and to protect the "names and addresses" of individuals still alive. Trump, far from being an opponent of the Deep State, is actually working hand-in-hand with them (the Mueller "investigation" is actually smoke and mirrors to distract the Sheeple from the fact that Trump is actually part of the Deep State).
gsjackson , June 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
I've heard Stone talk about Nixon's reaction to seeing Ruby shoot Oswald, but this surely wasn't an eyewitness account, as Stone was in 6th grade at the time. His career as a political operative goes back about 45 years to volunteering for CREEP as a college student in 1972, somewhat less as an influential one.

Apparently Johnson's mistress said he told her in so many words that the assassination was going to happen. I think there's little doubt that he was aware and acquiescent, perhaps an active participant. Ruby probably was his man, and he and Ruby both likely were Israel's men. A few years later Johnson was blood in the water for the mainstream media shark tank over Vietnam and civil disorder. If he were the prime mover of the JFK assassination, I doubt that the media would uniformly have laid off the subject. Only Israel, it would seem, could have orchestrated such a massive and continuous cover up.

[Jun 26, 2018] Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

JohnnyWalker123 , June 25, 2018 at 8:19 am GMT

Another well-reasoned and highly-detailed article. I agree that we'll probably never know many of the important details of how the assassination was planned and who was involved, given almost all the participants and witnesses are long since dead. However, we can almost certainly conclude that there was a conspiracy that involved many important individuals from the establishment, including President LBJ.

What are your thoughts on Seymour Hersh and his book "The Dark Side of Camelot"? I recall his book received very negative coverage by the MSM, but I can't really judge how credible his claims happen to be. It's a very shocking book though.

You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to distract from the "mastermind" assassin?

So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.

Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.

[Jun 26, 2018] Buzz Mohawk

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 25, 2018 at 8:09 am GMT 100 Words For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is a stabilized, panoramic version of the Zapruder film. With this, you can get a clearer idea of the scene and what really happened. For me at least, it removes a lot of the mystery, revealing that the physical event itself was not that remarkable, no matter who did it.

Read More Replies: @JohnnyWalker123 Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.

Which was remarkable.

Watch Rather lie here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc , @TonyVodvarka Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group, which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will. , @Heros Every time I see that Zapruder film I am reminded by the Kinks song "Give the people what they want":


When Oswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
Yet still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while killer takes aim.......
Hey Mom there go the pieces of the Presidents Brain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hWhCOx4U8&t=2m28s

Both Kennedy assassinations were also a massive psyop, and they remain so today. All the talk shows, all the movies, all the images flashing on screen, all the background music. But the scandal, is always used to push the sexualize and destroy the family agenda. Kennedy publicly had so many lovers, including Maralyn Monroe, another psyop herself.

It is the same with Clinton's famous cigar. This obsession with perverse sex is a very strong indicator of where the scandal is emanating. All the dogs not barking that point to this place are evidence too.

[Jun 26, 2018] Italy bans freemasons from cabinet minister positions

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [416] Disclaimer , June 25, 2018 at 10:00 pm GMT

@utu

OT, but learnt about this:

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/italy-bans-freemasons-from-cabinet-minister-positions/

Much better articles in italian or spanish. They basically say that's because of 'recent' events of P2 sect fraud in 1981. More sensible to think they don't want globalist with hidden loyalties infiltrating a new inexperienced government, but I don't follow italian developments closely. Any thoughts?

On the bright side, "the axis of the willing" against immigration seems to include this new Italy. https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/axis-merkel-csu-cdu-seehofer-kurz-salvini-asylum-934938
( A geographically Hasburgian axis, almost) Globalist vs nationalist. Now those are identity groups one can identify with.

[Jun 26, 2018] Neoliberal elites now are morally culturally bankrupt and serve outmoded gods whose future is annihilation- similar situation that had befallen pompous deluded aristocrats in the 18th-19th

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Bardon Kaldian , June 25, 2018 at 7:05 pm GMT

@utu

If Israel and Jewish Power killed JFK it matters very much. If by a magic wand I could make people believe that Israel and Jewish Power were behind JFK assassination it would be much easier to stop and undo all those things that you have listed:

This is simply wrong. Basically, it's the Joo (or any other) conspiracy, according to this world-view.

The crucial mistake virtually all conspiracy- theories minded people make is that they try to pin-point a clearly defined group (mostly religious, ethnic, racial,..) as the source of major socio-cultural changes, and frequently it's Jews (sometimes masons or something similar).

And this is a major misfire, because no such group exists. There is no causal connection between any ethnicity/race/ & great upheavals in the West (and in the US) in past 3-4 decades, especially re immigration debates, influx of culturally & racially foreign and inimical masses, disintegration of family & denigration of national loyalties etc. To think that a group (or groups), which is relatively easy to identify, can be the source of such monumental upheavals bespeaks of historical illiteracy.

There was no ethnic nor ideological group of people behind such shattering revolutions & world-view changes like transition from Roman republic to Imperial Rome, Protestant Reformation, Crusades, formation of national monarchies, Enlightenment, collapse of "divine rights" of kings, imperialist expansion of European powers, national awakening in the 19th C, WW1 and WW2, Not Jews, not masons, not Illuminati, not Rosicrucians, not some occult brotherhood residing in the Himalayas.

Simply, Western civilization has come to a dead end -as it was the continuity of the 18th C Enlightenment- and we are witnessing the processes of further decay, encapsulated in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: " Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?"

A man who, despite his shortcomings & delusions about the role of technology, various national cultures and their dominant currents, understood this better than most was Oswald Spengler. The Western civilizational matrix is old and tired. And this is the root of the Western decline. That what plagues the West & the US the most (race replacement, PC "liberal" ideological muzzle, hedonist emptiness & biological collapse manifested in infertility, pathological altruism, lunatic ideological fashions like n-th wave of feminism, media aggression promoting "diversity" & homosexualism- as different from homosexuality, self-hatred of European & Western culture .)-this is as present, although a bit modified, in Italy, Spain, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Switzerland,.. as in the US. And in these countries Jewish presence in the media & the overall life is negligible or non-existent.

Although ruling elites differ in these countries, they are a mixture of hereditary aristocracy, established bourgeois families & plutocratic oligarchs. These groups have, historically, served their countries. Now, they are morally & culturally bankrupt and serve outmoded gods whose future is annihilation- similar situation that had befallen pompous & deluded aristocrats in the 18th-19th C or imperialist jingoists in the 20th.

The failure of nerve that comes with exhausted & geriatric social-cultural matrix is to blame, not some group conspiracy.

But, the societal-cultural matrix is exhausted, not the people.
Our flaw is linear extrapolation of current events which leads to paralyzing pessimist fatalism. We should know from history this is a fatal mistake. Just compare