Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

American Exceptionalism as the USA version of nationalism

News Who Rules America Recommended books Recommended Links Economic costs of American Exceptionalism American imperialism: the attempt to secure global hegemony What's the Matter with Kansas
Andrew Bacevich on the American militarism Diplomacy by deception American imperialism: the attempt to secure global hegemony Big Uncle is Watching You Industrial Espionage Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State Damage to the US tech companies
National Security State Corporatism Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization  Neoconservatism as a stage of development of Neoliberalism Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Understanding Mayberry Machiavellians (Rovism) The History of Media-Military-Industrial Complex Concept
Narcissism as Key American Value Anti-Americanism Nation under attack meme National Socialism and Military Keysianism Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Authoritarian Corporatism Terrorism as a smokesreen for National Security State implementation
Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Fighting Russophobia Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? American Exceptionalism as Civil Religion Fighting Neo-Theocracy Inside democratization hypocrisy fair The Unlikely History of American Exceptionalism Walter A. McDougall
Quotes Mark Twain Quotes Niccolo Machiavelli Reinhold Niebuhr Propaganda Quotes Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Introduction


I call it a tribal phenomena. A tribe can be a religion, a nation, a gender, a race, or any group which is different from the group you identify with. It is not confined to religion.

And it seems to be an inherent trait in the human species that was one aspect of our evolution. Only when we learn that it is better to cooperate with each other rather than kill each other will we be free from this deadly disease which may, in the end, destroy us all.

sheridan44 comment in The Guardian

[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

According to George Soros, the events of 9/11 renewed a "distorted view" of American supremacy that "postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side."  In other words 9/11 was important step to the transformation of the USA in the "National Security State" with the permanent regime of Total survellance" over the population. The next step were events of 2008, which signified crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology. Neoliberalism now can mostly be propagated by brute force, via military intervention or some form of coup d'état (aka color revolutions) much like Trotskyites planned to propagate socialism to other countries via Permanent Revolution.  With  "Democracy promotion" instead of "liberation of proletariat".

Rise of American exeptionalism is also connected with the reaction to neoliberalism with its redistribution of wealth up by most of US population. Actually this is global phenomenon: neoliberalism gives strong impulse to the rise of neofascism in many countries, not only in the USA. As William I. Robinson noted in his article  Global Capitalism Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism  

Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21st century fascism.5   The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims.

Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

American exceptionalism is unique in many ways as it does not include mass mobilization (see Inverted Totalitarism). "Go shopping" famously recommended George W Bush after 9/11. It should probably be more correctly called US-specific version of far right nationalism. The latter is  a milder variant of  one that existed in 30th of the last century in national-socialist countries of Europe, such as Italy and Spain, which does not necessarily employ physical violence against political opponents.  

The sad fact is that the America of today is even more arrogant than the America  in the days of Manifest Destiny and gunboat diplomacy. Indeed, the dissolution of the USSR cemented the national myth of superiority. The establishment of unparalleled industrial might, military victories in two world wars and on both sides of the globe, and the staggering economic defeat of Communism in the Cold War all have combined to cement America’s presumption of  chapters in a long history of escalating national illusions of pre-eminence and blind national egoism. The dominant view about the USA from most countries is that it has a split paranoid personality,  a “Jekyll and Hyde” America, “a democracy inside, an empire outside.” American policy makers, with their pretensions of global superiority after collapse of the USSR and with ever-increasing power of their military machine moved steadily toward making the whole globe a US preserve.  Despite its vulgarity and borderline obsession with pornography (or may be because of that) the US culture made inroad all over the globe, and even in Europe and Russia despite rich cultural traditions of both. While the blatant American imperialism of the turn of the last century is now only a memory, today the nations face policies evidence more insidious brands of imperialism: cultural imperialism, economic imperialism,  the imperialism of neoliberal ideology and forced globalization on the US terms.  All are spread by the same national arrogance, the same cock-sure certainly that we are right.  Many nations fear the United States practices a contemporary brand of “soft imperialism,” enslaving nations with IMF debt meachisms under  the auspice of economic globalization.  Converting  the Third World in debt slaves or simply exploit it. In spite of such fears, and despite the setbacks, Americans remain convinced that eventually all nations are destined to fall into step and adopt “the American way.” All the while, the US politicians decry the rigid fundamentalism of our enemies while we remain utterly blind to our own.

Americans have been, and are today, exposed almost from birth to a particularly virulent strain of nationalism unlike that found in other modern nations. The resulting affliction stems from an unswerving faith in national superiority and uniqueness that is deeply ingrained in the American mind. Historically, these notions of superiority sprang from myths of the visions of chosen-ness, and high destiny; from the myth of frontier self-sufficiency; and finally from the perceived universality of American ideology and dominance of US culture and English language over the globe. While in some of us, nationalist feelings are not that pronounced, few of us are immune, and that is especially visible in times of anger, or fear. In spite of, and perhaps because of, our many strengths, practically all of us as Americans share this particularly prideful, unlovely, and potentially fatal weakness. In one form or another and to some degree or another, we carry national pride across the invisible boundary that separates benign patriotism from malignant far right nationalism. Hillary candidacy demonstrates that this process went too far and became really  malignant:

Still, Americans are sure that they, like Woodrow Wilson, have seen “visions that other nations have not seen,” and that, accordingly, the United States’ mission has always been to become the “light of the world.”28 Indeed, from the very beginning, the American national identity was built on audacious visions of chosen-ness, destiny, and mission. Ronald Reagan was not the first nor the last in a long line of entrenched American visionaries to proclaim American exceptionalism, with its missionary implications of the Puritan “city on the hill,” no longer a stationary beacon, but an active force, the “leader of the free world” directing its forces against “empires of evil.”29

With such visions comes a warning: “the adoption of political and social values … as a framework for national identification is possible only if these values are based on some source of apparent ultimate truth which confers on them absolute validity — if they can claim universality.”30 If Americans unflinchingly believe that theirs is the single principle of Absolute Truth representing the universal interests of humankind, then any opposition will appear either criminal or inhuman.31 As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. puts it, “Those who are convinced that they have a monopoly on Truth always feel that they are saving the world when they slaughter heretics. Their object remains the making of the world over in the image of their dogmatic ideology — their goal is a monolithic world, organized on the principle of the infallibility of a single creed.”32 If Americans are so egotistical as to believe that their nation with its gleaming lamp of Ultimate Truth is the envy of the world, then they will perceive no wrong in trying to make the world over in America’s image, by whatever means. However, the world is a very complex and diverse place, and Ultimate Truth is a highly elusive and unstable substance. Thus, these are not only very arrogant ideas; they are also very dangerous ideas.

The way in which American elite as a whole relates with the rest of the world demonstrates a strong nationalistic (as in cultural nationalism) and chauvinistic point of view. That means that mass media presents events only from the particular  point of view, that militarism is always encouraged and defended. With the considerable part of brainwashed lemmings (aka American public) believing that their nation, or culture, is superior to all others.

This view involves a unique mixture of prejudice, xenophobia and inter-group and in-group violence, with the latter directed at suppression of dissent. Indeed, the United States’ inflated sense of eminence create additional, non-economic stimulus for the country elite to act in  fundamentally ethnocentric ways, and to to strive for unilateral rule of the world using military supremacy as door opener to resources of other nations.  And first of all oil.

The other key support of American exeptionalism are large financial institutions, which depend on the success of the US "financial imperialism". We can view imperialism as ethnocentrism in action. And "financial imperialism" is very similar to "old-style" European imperialism, where  European nations discovered new lands and imposed capitalism, their system of law and culture on the native peoples usually through violence. Like old colonies were forced to abandon their way of life and adopt a “superior” lifestyle and became resource base of metropolia, financial imperialism impose debt on other nations keeping them in a kind of debt slavery with the same result: they also became resource base for metropolia. 

American exceptionalism might also have religious overtones as "citi on the hill" metaphor implies.  It is not thus accidental that the first deep analyses of American exceptionalism was done by Niebuhr from the religious positions in his famous book The Irony of American History. Niebuhr as a theologian came to conclusion that it represents a sin that inevitably lead to the false allure of simple solutions and lack of appreciation of limits of power. In his opinion "Messianic consciousness" which constitute the core of American exceptionalism, was partially inherited form religious dogmas of early religious sects which came to colonize America.  Those views were later enhanced and developed further by Professor Bacevich. See more details exposition of his views on the subject in the page New American Militarism

Any unbiased analysis of the nationalist activities leads to a disappointing conclusion: nationalists can behave as compradors: as enthusiastic servants of a foreign occupier of their own territory. In this case international banking cartel. Ukraine is one example, Serbia and Georgia are other but very similar examples. In the same way the USA can be viewed as a country occupied by financial oligarchy with most of its citizents converted into "debt slaves".

The policy which oppose exceptionalism is often called Noninterventionism

Noninterventionism is a rather clunky and unappealing label for a set of very appealing ideas: that the U.S. should mind its own business, act with restraint, respect other nations, refrain from unnecessary violence, and pursue peace. If future administrations took just a few of these as guiding principles for the conduct of foreign policy, America and the world would both be better off.

There were several important thinkers who contributed to understand of this complex and multifaceted, like any type of nationalism,  phenomena. We will discuss (in breif) just four thinkers that made significant impact in understanding of this very complex concept. Among them: 

  1. Niebuhr
  2. Michael Ignatieff
  3. Anatol Lieven
  4. Andrew Basevich

American neo-conservatism  is a closely related phenomenon. In this case the key point is that the pre-eminence of the USA as the sole superpower needs to be maintained at all costs and with wide use of military force. Among prominent neocons we can name Hillary Clinton and most of republican candidates for the presidency in the 2016 presidential race. That means that American exeptionalism is an establishment view, the view of the US elite, not some anomaly.  

Niebuhr's contribution to understanding of American exeptionalism

In his brilliant foreword to Niebuhr's book The Irony of American History Bacevich noted:

In Niebuhr's view, America's rise to power derived less from divine favor than from good fortune combines with a fierce determination to convert that good fortune in wealth and power. The good fortune cane in the form of vast landscape, rich in resources, ripe for exploitation, and apparently insulated from the bloody cockpit of [European] power politics. The determination found expression in a strategy of commercial and territorial expansionism that proved staggeringly successful, evidence not of superior virtue but of shrewdness punctuated with a considerable capacity for ruthlessness.

In describing America's rise to power Niebuhr does not shrink from using words like "hegemony" and "imperialism". His point is not to tag the United States with responsibility for all the world's evils. Rather, it is to suggest that it does not differ from other great powers as much as Americans may imagine.

...Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf. "All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in this political cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. " This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion then of light in the political realm.". In the United States, he continued "The tendency to equate our political [goals] with our Christian convictions cause politics to generate idolatry."

Michael Ignatieff contribution to understanding of American exeptionalism

In the introduction to American Exceptionalism and Human Rights Michael Ignatieff identifies three main types of exceptionalism:

I would add to it

The contributors to American Exceptionalism and Human Rights use Ignatieff's essay as a starting point to discuss specific types of exceptionalism -- America's approach to capital punishment and to free speech, for example -- or to explore the social, cultural, and institutional roots of exceptionalism.

Anatol Lieven contribution

The second important contribution to to the studies of American exceptionalism is Anatol Lieven.  He correctly linked American exceptionalism with far right nationalism which Wikipedia defined as

Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism

 "America keeps a fine house," Anatol Lieven writes in his probably best book on the American Exceptionalism (America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism ) "but in its cellar there lives a demon, whose name is nationalism."  In a way US neocons, who commanded key position in Bush II and Barack Obama administrations  are not that different from Israeli Likud Party. 

While neocons definitely played an important role in shaping the US policy immediately after 9/11, the origins of aggressive U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 also reflect controversial character of the US national identity, which according to Anatol Lieven embraces two contradictory features.

Both of those tendencies are much older then 9/11. The first aggressive, expansionist war by the US was the war of 1812. See American Loyalists, The Most Important War You Probably Know Nothing About - By James Traub Foreign Policy

The War of 1812 matters because it was America’s first war of choice. The United States did not have to declare war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812, to survive as a nation and indeed President James Madison did not want to. The newly founded United States was growing westward but the “war hawks” in Congress pressed for a conflict with America’s former colonial masters in the hopes of gaining even more territory to the north. The term “hawk” was coined in the run-up to the War of 1812 and the hawks of U.S. foreign policy have been with us ever since.

The War of 1812 was America’s first neocon war. With an audacity that would become familiar, the war hawks appealed to a combination of personal pride — the British navy was forcibly conscripting Americans — and the prospect of material gain — the absorption of British Canada — wrapped up in love of country. No one said the conquest of Canada would be a “cakewalk,” but the hawks were confident the Americans would be greeted as liberators.

These two mutually-excusive impulses caused wild oscillations of the US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East and influenced the nature of U.S. support for Israel. Due to those oscillations those two contradictory impulses are undermining the U.S. foreign policy credibility in the eyes of the worlds and complicates reaching important national objectives.

Some attribute the term “American Exceptionalism” to Alexis de Tocqueville — though he never penned the phrase. In reality this term originated by German Marxists who were trying to explain weakness of worker movement in the USA. The idiom was popularized by neo-conservative pundits (aka former Trotskyites) soon after WWII.

In reality the term "American Exceptionalism is nothing but a disguised, more "politically correct" reference to America's Janus-faced nationalism. It has some mystical components like long vanished under the hill of financial oligarchy the "American dream" and its German-style refrain "God bless America". What is interesting about "God bless America" is that most founding fathers were Deists, profoundly critical of organized religions and they sought to separate personal -- what many of them described as mythologies -- from government. They were profoundly respectful of personal religious belief, but saw government as necessarily secular if freedom was to prevail. Not until the religious revivals of the 1820s through the 1860s can you find many identifying religion as a component of American exceptionalism.

As Martin Woollacott aptly noted in his review of Anatol Lieven book America, Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism ( Guardian):

He cuts through the conformist political rhetoric of America, the obfuscating special language of the "American dream", or the "American exception", which infects even foreign accounts. Even to use the word "nationalism" to describe an American phenomenon is, as he notes, not normal. Americans are not "nationalist", they are "patriotic". It is a patriotism which too often leaves no room for the patriotism of others, combining a theoretical care for all humanity with, in practice, an "indifference verging on contempt" for the interests and hopes of non-Americans. Nothing could be more distant from "the decent respect to the opinions of mankind" recommended to Americans in the early years of their independent existence

Lieven first paints a picture of an in some ways admirable American "civic nationalism", based on respect for the rule of law, constitutionality, democracy, and social (but not economic) equality, and a desire to spread these values in the world. But because this nationalism unrealistically holds that such "American" values can be exported at will, it blinds Americans to the different nature of other societies, sustaining the mistaken idea that if only particular rulers or classes can be displaced, "democracy" will prevail - a "decapitation" theory which contributed to the decision to attack Saddam. The American campaign to democratize other societies, Lieven says, harshly but fairly, "combines sloppiness of intellect and meanness of spirit". But, while in part mythic and not entirely rational, this side of American nationalism is of some value not only to the United States, but to the world as a whole.

...The result, Lieven argues, is that instead of the mature nationalism of a satisfied and dominant state, American nationalism is more akin to that of late developing and insecure states such as Wilhelmine Germany and Tsarist Russia.

"While America keeps a splendid and welcoming house," Lieven writes in his preface, "it also keeps a family of demons in its cellar.

His book supports Mark Twain quite to the effect that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one!

He also points at the very important side effect of Exceptionalism: "America's hypocrisy," (see for example Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair). An outstanding level of hypocrisy in the US foreign policy also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American (although British are strong competitors). Now after Snowden, Libya, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc we might be appear to be entering an new stage on which "The era of easy hypocrisy is over."

The regime of easy hypocrisy means that America position itself as a blessed nation created by God and (here’s the rub) therefore privileged in what actions it can take around the world and the nation that can safely ignore international norms, which are created only for suckers. It is above the international law.

We create our own reality

The source of the term, which implicitly stresses that the USA stands outside international norms and treaties and can act as it please, is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

This is pretty precise definition of the idea of introduced by Nazi idea of “decisionism” in which action is seen as a value in itself. Decisionism is a defining feature of any totalitarian state. By extension if you find decisionism exists in particular state, it is rational to expect other F-features of such states. Umberto Eco has listed fourteen attributes along with two major features: irrationalism and decisionism. Eco has them listed as attributes 2 and 3.

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Fascism has an irrational element that rejects modern thought because it conflicts with traditional beliefs of the Christian religion and because fascism views communist ideology as a child of the Age of Reason and Jewish intellectuals. The Nazis were well aware that Karl Marx was a German Jew. Evolution is seen as modernist and is rejected in favor of Christian creationism. This debate is repeating itself today in American society with Christian fundamentalism attempting to gain control of state education.

Very closely related to irrationalism is “decisionism” in which action is seen as a value in itself. This is an existential element in fascism that elevates action over thought. Action is a sign of unambiguous power, and thought is associated with weakness and indecision. Carl Schmitt, a Nazi Law constitutional jurist, wrote that a decision is “(an actual historical event) and not within that of a norm (an ahistoric and transcendent idea).” The a priori is overshadowed by the posteriori. Actions over abstract principles, Fact over Idea, Power over pure thought, Certainty over ambiguity are the values and ideological norms that are primary in a totalitarian state.

After fleeing Germany, Marcuse wrote in 1934 a critique of German fascist society and attempted to identify those beliefs and philosophical themes found within fascist ideology. Marcuse believed that the seeds of fascism could be found in the Capitalist Democratic Liberal State, which over time mutate as Monopoly Capitalism gain control of the State as in the case of Germany. The evolution of Capitalism is also the concealed dialectic of Fascism. Those mutated liberal democratic ideas and values are betrayed by a totalitarianism based on action and force.

Using Germany as his example of a fascist society Marcuse writes:

And within the political sphere all relationships are oriented in turn toward the most extreme “crisis,” toward the decision about the “state of emergency,” of war and peace. The true possessor of power is defined as beyond all legality and legitimacy: “Sovereign is he who decides on the state of emergency.” (Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie,1922).

Sovereignty is founded on the factual power to make this decision (decisionism). The basic political relationship is the “friend-enemy relationship.” Its crisis is war, which proceeds until the enemy has been physically annihilated.

There is no social relationship that does not in a crisis turn into a political relationship. Behind all economic, social, religious, and cultural relations stands total politicization. There is no sphere of private or public life, no legal or rational court of appeal that could oppose it.
Negations, page 36.

From what social idea in Capitalistic Liberalism did this decisionism evolve? It is none other than the economic hero, the free independent entrepreneur of industrial capitalism.The idea of the charismatic, authoritarian leader is already preformed in the liberalist celebration of the gifted economic leader, the “born” executive. Negations, page 18.

The total-authoritarian state is born out of the Liberal state and the former concept of the economic leader is transformed into a Fuhrer. We can see this mutation of the concept of the “born” executive into the leader-state (Fuhrerstaat) in George Bush’s speech and actions.

An uneducated but privileged man, George Bush, has merged the idea of the CEO with that of the State Leader. But society has also made this same concatenation of ideas. He is a president of action and seen as a “strong” president. He is doer and not a thinker and his followers are proud of this persona. His opponents are “feminine” and members of the “reality based community.” Consequently, the Bush administration has attempted to engineer the executive branch to be the strongest in American history by claiming “inherent” presidential powers. It is precisely the concept of “state of emergency” that Bush has used to grab more and more state power in the name of security.

He has instituted the hyper-surveillance of Americas with the Patriot act, which is based on the same justification Nazi Law used to empower the Fuhrer. A Bush lawyer and advisor, John Yoo, wrote, Just two weeks after the September 11 attacks, a secret memo to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ office concluded that President Bush had the power to deploy military force “preemptively” against any terrorist groups or countries that supported them—regardless of whether they had any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Towers or the Pentagon. The memo, written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, argues that there are effectively “no limits” on the president’s authority to wage war—a sweeping assertion of executive power that some constitutional scholars say goes considerably beyond any that had previously been articulated by the department. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/

Carl Schmitt, a Nazi Law constitutional jurist in Hitler’s Third Reich, wrote a similar justification of power for the State Leader using the concept of the “exception” in his work “Political Theology,” Hence, the thundering opening of his treatise: 'The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.' It is a disturbingly 'realistic' view of politics, which, in the manner of Hobbes, subordinates de jure authority to de facto power: autoritas, non veritas facit legem. (The law is made by the one who has authority (i.e. power) and not the one who possesses the truth (the legitimate sovereign).)

The problem of the exception, for the constitutional jurist Schmitt, can only be resolved within the framework of a decision (an actual historical event) and not within that of a norm (an ahistoric and transcendent idea). Moreover, the legal act which decides what constitutes an exception is 'a decision in the true sense of the word', because a general norm, an ordinary legal prescription, 'can never encompass a total exception'. If so, then, 'the decision that a real exception exists cannot be derived entirely from this norm.' The problem of the exception, in other words, demarcates the limit of the rule of law and opens up that trans-legal space, that no-man's land of existential exigency, which is bereft of legal authority and where the decision of the sovereign abrogates the anomaly of the legal void. …against the legal positivism of his times, Schmitt seems to be arguing that not law but the sovereign, not the legal text but the political will, is the supreme authority in a state. States are not legal entities but historical polities; they are engaged in a constant battle for survival where any moment of their existence may constitute an exception, it may engender a political crisis that cannot be remedied by the application of the rule of law. From the existential priority of the sovereign over the legitimacy of the norm, it would also follow that according to Schmitt, law is subservient to politics and not autonomous of it. The Sovereignty of the Political Carl Schmitt and the Nemesis of Liberalism http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/CarlSchmitt.htm

When the Bush administration argues that increased presidential power is needed to fight terrorism by suspending or overriding the constitutional protections against search and seizures, they are arguing the principles of Nazi constitutional law. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and efforts to expand presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years." Talking to reporters aboard his government plane as he flew from Islamabad, Pakistan to Muscat, Oman on an overseas mission, Cheney said a contraction in the power of the presidency since the Vietnam and Watergate era must be reversed. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK28B82.htmlAgainst these ever expanding powers of the State stand the once traditional individual freedoms upheld by the Liberal Democratic State. The theologian and philosopher of the Age of Reason, Immanuel Kant wrote…Human right must be kept sacred, no matter how great the sacrifice it costs the ruling powers. One cannot go only halfway and contrive a pragmatically conditioned right….All politics, rather, must bend the knee before sacred human right…

"Faith-based community" vs. Reality-based community

The same idea from slightly different angle is reflected in term "Faith-based community" vs. Reality-based community ( Wikipedia )

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community" was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than on faith, assumption, or ideology. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[1]

Commentators who use this term generally oppose former President Bush's policies and by using this term imply that Bush's policies (and, by extension, those of the conservative movement generally) were (or are) out of touch with reality. Others use the term to draw a contrast with the perceived arrogance of the Bush Administration's unilateral policies, in accordance with the aide's quote. Its popularity has prompted some conservative commentators to use the term ironically, to accuse the left-leaning "reality-based community" of ignoring reality[2].

Imperial Outreach

The Republican Party — and more particularly the neo-con wing of the party — is particularly susceptible to imperial outreach. This imperial mentality is well exemplified by Fox News reporting.

For example, Matt Lewis, a conservative political Pundit on MSNBC attacked Barack Obama for saying “Any world order that elevates one nation above another will fall flat.” In response Lewis stated:

“I think that goes against the idea of American exceptionalism…most Americans believe that America was gifted by God and is a blessed nation and therefore we are better.”

For any conservative the concept of “American Exceptionalism” is rather bemusing. America is not more democratic, more free, more enterprising, more tolerant, or more anything else be it Canada, New Zealand or for that matter Australia. America is just a bigger country and due to its size, human resources and industrial potential it the leading Western country and the owner of world reserve currency, after Great Britain became financially exhausted after WWII. That means that American Exceptionalism is simply a politically correct work for a combustible mixture of nationalism (with Christian messianism component similar to Crusades with "democracy" instead Jesus) and Jingoism. In a very deep sense this is negation of the idea "all men are created equal" and as such is anti-American ;-).

America is a blessed nation as everybody in the country is an immigrant, the nation that at some point of time was freer and more prosperous than many others, but as a great Nazarene once said, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

sample:

BILL MOYERS:

Here is one of those neon sentences. Quote,

"The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people," you write, "is that nothing should disrupt their access to these goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part of through the distribution of largesse here at home, and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad."

In other words, you're saying that our foreign policy is the result of a dependence on consumer goods and credit.

ANDREW BACEVICH:

Our foreign policy is not something simply concocted by people in Washington D.C. and imposed on us. Our foreign policy is something that is concocted in Washington D.C., but it reflects the perceptions of our political elite about what we want, we the people want. And what we want, by and large - I mean, one could point to many individual exceptions - but, what we want, by and large is, we want this continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods.

We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be, in order to be able to drive wherever we want to be able to drive. And we want to be able to do these things without having to think about whether or not the book's balanced at the end of the month, or the end of the fiscal year. And therefore, we want this unending line of credit.

Anti-Americanism as blowback of American exeptionalism

Quite logically the imperial actions is a source of widespread Anti-Americanism. As Ian Tyrrell noted in What is American exceptionalism

It is also important to realize that there is a “negative” version of exceptionalism, i.e. that the US has been exceptionally bad, racist, violent. While this is less a part of the common myths about American history, the attempt to compensate for American exceptionalism by emphasizing unique American evils is equally distorting. We need to think more about this matter, especially when we deal with racial divisions and gender prejudice. Is the US experience a variant on wider racial and gender patterns? While social history has provided new perspectives on the role of women, African Americans, and ethnics in the making of American history, has that new history discredited or qualified ideas of American exceptionalism?

The actual term “American exceptionalism” was originally coined by German Marxists who wished to explain why the US seemed to have by-passed the rise of socialism and Marxism. (Actually the US had much class conflict, some Marxist parties and theorists, and a lively socialist movement, though the latter was not on the scale of, say, France and Germany.) But exceptionalism is much more than about class conflict.

Some historians prefer the terms “differences” or “uniqueness?” Are these suitable substitutes? Whatever the terminology, the implications of American difference/uniqueness have long been debated. Some have said the difference was temporary, and eventually the US would be like other countries. Others have argued that American “specialness” stems from its political, intellectual, and even religious heritage, and is enduring.

Conclusions

Skeptic view on American Exceptionalism is valuable for different reasons some of which were listed by Stephen M. Walt in his The Myth of American Exceptionalism (Foreign Policy, November 2011)

The only thing wrong with this self-congratulatory portrait of America's global role is that it is mostly a myth. Although the United States possesses certain unique qualities -- from high levels of religiosity to a political culture that privileges individual freedom -- the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been determined primarily by its relative power and by the inherently competitive nature of international politics. By focusing on their supposedly exceptional qualities, Americans blind themselves to the ways that they are a lot like everyone else.

This unchallenged faith in American exceptionalism makes it harder for Americans to understand why others are less enthusiastic about U.S. dominance, often alarmed by U.S. policies, and frequently irritated by what they see as U.S. hypocrisy, whether the subject is possession of nuclear weapons, conformity with international law, or America's tendency to condemn the conduct of others while ignoring its own failings. Ironically, U.S. foreign policy would probably be more effective if Americans were less convinced of their own unique virtues and less eager to proclaim them.

What we need, in short, is a more realistic and critical assessment of America's true character and contributions. In that spirit, I offer here the Top 5 Myths about American Exceptionalism.

Myth 1: There Is Something Exceptional About American Exceptionalism.

Whenever American leaders refer to the "unique" responsibilities of the United States, they are saying that it is different from other powers and that these differences require them to take on special burdens.

Yet there is nothing unusual about such lofty declarations; indeed, those who make them are treading a well-worn path. Most great powers have considered themselves superior to their rivals and have believed that they were advancing some greater good when they imposed their preferences on others. The British thought they were bearing the "white man's burden," while French colonialists invoked la mission civilisatrice to justify their empire. Portugal, whose imperial activities were hardly distinguished, believed it was promoting a certain missão civilizadora. Even many of the officials of the former Soviet Union genuinely believed they were leading the world toward a socialist utopia despite the many cruelties that communist rule inflicted. Of course, the United States has by far the better claim to virtue than Stalin or his successors, but Obama was right to remind us that all countries prize their own particular qualities.

So when Americans proclaim they are exceptional and indispensable, they are simply the latest nation to sing a familiar old song. Among great powers, thinking you're special is the norm, not the exception.

Myth 2: The United States Behaves Better Than Other Nations Do.

Declarations of American exceptionalism rest on the belief that the United States is a uniquely virtuous nation, one that loves peace, nurtures liberty, respects human rights, and embraces the rule of law. Americans like to think their country behaves much better than other states do, and certainly better than other great powers.

If only it were true. The United States may not have been as brutal as the worst states in world history, but a dispassionate look at the historical record belies most claims about America's moral superiority.

For starters, the United States has been one of the most expansionist powers in modern history. It began as 13 small colonies clinging to the Eastern Seaboard, but eventually expanded across North America, seizing Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California from Mexico in 1846. Along the way, it eliminated most of the native population and confined the survivors to impoverished reservations. By the mid-19th century, it had pushed Britain out of the Pacific Northwest and consolidated its hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.

The United States has fought numerous wars since then -- starting several of them -- and its wartime conduct has hardly been a model of restraint. The 1899-1902 conquest of the Philippines killed some 200,000 to 400,000 Filipinos, most of them civilians, and the United States and its allies did not hesitate to dispatch some 305,000 German and 330,000 Japanese civilians through aerial bombing during World War II, mostly through deliberate campaigns against enemy cities. No wonder Gen. Curtis LeMay, who directed the bombing campaign against Japan, told an aide, "If the U.S. lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals." The United States dropped more than 6 million tons of bombs during the Indochina war, including tons of napalm and lethal defoliants like Agent Orange, and it is directly responsible for the deaths of many of the roughly 1 million civilians who died in that war.

More recently, the U.S.-backed Contra war in Nicaragua killed some 30,000 Nicaraguans, a percentage of their population equivalent to 2 million dead Americans. U.S. military action has led directly or indirectly to the deaths of 250,000 Muslims over the past three decades (and that's a low-end estimate, not counting the deaths resulting from the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s), including the more than 100,000 people who died following the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. U.S. drones and Special Forces are going after suspected terrorists in at least five countries at present and have killed an unknown number of innocent civilians in the process. Some of these actions may have been necessary to make Americans more prosperous and secure. But while Americans would undoubtedly regard such acts as indefensible if some foreign country were doing them to us, hardly any U.S. politicians have questioned these policies. Instead, Americans still wonder, "Why do they hate us?"

The United States talks a good game on human rights and international law, but it has refused to sign most human rights treaties, is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and has been all too willing to cozy up to dictators -- remember our friend Hosni Mubarak? -- with abysmal human rights records. If that were not enough, the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the George W. Bush administration's reliance on waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, and preventive detention should shake America's belief that it consistently acts in a morally superior fashion. Obama's decision to retain many of these policies suggests they were not a temporary aberration.

The United States never conquered a vast overseas empire or caused millions to die through tyrannical blunders like China's Great Leap Forward or Stalin's forced collectivization. And given the vast power at its disposal for much of the past century, Washington could certainly have done much worse. But the record is clear: U.S. leaders have done what they thought they had to do when confronted by external dangers, and they paid scant attention to moral principles along the way. The idea that the United States is uniquely virtuous may be comforting to Americans; too bad it's not true.

Myth 3: America's Success Is Due to Its Special Genius.

The United States has enjoyed remarkable success, and Americans tend to portray their rise to world power as a direct result of the political foresight of the Founding Fathers, the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, the priority placed on individual liberty, and the creativity and hard work of the American people. In this narrative, the United States enjoys an exceptional global position today because it is, well, exceptional.

There is more than a grain of truth to this version of American history. It's not an accident that immigrants came to America in droves in search of economic opportunity, and the "melting pot" myth facilitated the assimilation of each wave of new Americans. America's scientific and technological achievements are fully deserving of praise and owe something to the openness and vitality of the American political order.

But America's past success is due as much to good luck as to any uniquely American virtues. The new nation was lucky that the continent was lavishly endowed with natural resources and traversed by navigable rivers. It was lucky to have been founded far from the other great powers and even luckier that the native population was less advanced and highly susceptible to European diseases. Americans were fortunate that the European great powers were at war for much of the republic's early history, which greatly facilitated its expansion across the continent, and its global primacy was ensured after the other great powers fought two devastating world wars. This account of America's rise does not deny that the United States did many things right, but it also acknowledges that America's present position owes as much to good fortune as to any special genius or "manifest destiny."

Myth 4: The United States Is Responsible for Most of the Good in the World.

Americans are fond of giving themselves credit for positive international developments. President Bill Clinton believed the United States was "indispensable to the forging of stable political relations," and the late Harvard University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington thought U.S. primacy was central "to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the world." Journalist Michael Hirsh has gone even further, writing in his book At War With Ourselves that America's global role is "the greatest gift the world has received in many, many centuries, possibly all of recorded history." Scholarly works such as Tony Smith's America's Mission and G. John Ikenberry's Liberal Leviathan emphasize America's contribution to the spread of democracy and its promotion of a supposedly liberal world order. Given all the high-fives American leaders have given themselves, it is hardly surprising that most Americans see their country as an overwhelmingly positive force in world affairs.

Once again, there is something to this line of argument, just not enough to make it entirely accurate. The United States has made undeniable contributions to peace and stability in the world over the past century, including the Marshall Plan, the creation and management of the Bretton Woods system, its rhetorical support for the core principles of democracy and human rights, and its mostly stabilizing military presence in Europe and the Far East. But the belief that all good things flow from Washington's wisdom overstates the U.S. contribution by a wide margin.

For starters, though Americans watching Saving Private Ryan or Patton may conclude that the United States played the central role in vanquishing Nazi Germany, most of the fighting was in Eastern Europe and the main burden of defeating Hitler's war machine was borne by the Soviet Union. Similarly, though the Marshall Plan and NATO played important roles in Europe's post-World War II success, Europeans deserve at least as much credit for rebuilding their economies, constructing a novel economic and political union, and moving beyond four centuries of sometimes bitter rivalry. Americans also tend to think they won the Cold War all by themselves, a view that ignores the contributions of other anti-Soviet adversaries and the courageous dissidents whose resistance to communist rule produced the "velvet revolutions" of 1989.

Moreover, as Godfrey Hodgson recently noted in his sympathetic but clear-eyed book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, the spread of liberal ideals is a global phenomenon with roots in the Enlightenment, and European philosophers and political leaders did much to advance the democratic ideal. Similarly, the abolition of slavery and the long effort to improve the status of women owe more to Britain and other democracies than to the United States, where progress in both areas trailed many other countries. Nor can the United States claim a global leadership role today on gay rights, criminal justice, or economic equality -- Europe's got those areas covered.

Finally, any honest accounting of the past half-century must acknowledge the downside of American primacy. The United States has been the major producer of greenhouse gases for most of the last hundred years and thus a principal cause of the adverse changes that are altering the global environment. The United States stood on the wrong side of the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa and backed plenty of unsavory dictatorships -- including Saddam Hussein's -- when short-term strategic interests dictated. Americans may be justly proud of their role in creating and defending Israel and in combating global anti-Semitism, but its one-sided policies have also prolonged Palestinian statelessness and sustained Israel's brutal occupation.

Bottom line: Americans take too much credit for global progress and accept too little blame for areas where U.S. policy has in fact been counterproductive. Americans are blind to their weak spots, and in ways that have real-world consequences. Remember when Pentagon planners thought U.S. troops would be greeted in Baghdad with flowers and parades? They mostly got RPGs and IEDs instead.

Myth 5: God Is on Our Side.

A crucial component of American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States has a divinely ordained mission to lead the rest of the world. Ronald Reagan told audiences that there was "some divine plan" that had placed America here, and once quoted Pope Pius XII saying, "Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." Bush offered a similar view in 2004, saying, "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom." The same idea was expressed, albeit less nobly, in Otto von Bismarck's alleged quip that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States."

Confidence is a valuable commodity for any country. But when a nation starts to think it enjoys the mandate of heaven and becomes convinced that it cannot fail or be led astray by scoundrels or incompetents, then reality is likely to deliver a swift rebuke. Ancient Athens, Napoleonic France, imperial Japan, and countless other countries have succumbed to this sort of hubris, and nearly always with catastrophic results.

Despite America's many successes, the country is hardly immune from setbacks, follies, and boneheaded blunders. If you have any doubts about that, just reflect on how a decade of ill-advised tax cuts, two costly and unsuccessful wars, and a financial meltdown driven mostly by greed and corruption have managed to squander the privileged position the United States enjoyed at the end of the 20th century. Instead of assuming that God is on their side, perhaps Americans should heed Abraham Lincoln's admonition that our greatest concern should be "whether we are on God's side."

Given the many challenges Americans now face, from persistent unemployment to the burden of winding down two deadly wars, it's unsurprising that they find the idea of their own exceptionalism comforting -- and that their aspiring political leaders have been proclaiming it with increasing fervor. Such patriotism has its benefits, but not when it leads to a basic misunderstanding of America's role in the world. This is exactly how bad decisions get made.

America has its own special qualities, as all countries do, but it is still a state embedded in a competitive global system. It is far stronger and richer than most, and its geopolitical position is remarkably favorable. These advantages give the United States a wider range of choice in its conduct of foreign affairs, but they don't ensure that its choices will be good ones. Far from being a unique state whose behavior is radically different from that of other great powers, the United States has behaved like all the rest, pursuing its own self-interest first and foremost, seeking to improve its relative position over time, and devoting relatively little blood or treasure to purely idealistic pursuits. Yet, just like past great powers, it has convinced itself that it is different, and better, than everyone else.

International politics is a contact sport, and even powerful states must compromise their political principles for the sake of security and prosperity. Nationalism is also a powerful force, and it inevitably highlights the country's virtues and sugarcoats its less savory aspects.

But if Americans want to be truly exceptional, they might start by viewing the whole idea of "American exceptionalism" with a much more skeptical eye.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News

[Jul 16, 2018] The Racial Realignment of American Politics by Patrick McDermott

He completely misses the role of nationalism is the opposition to neoliberalism.
Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The idea that demography is political destiny is not new. Peter Brimelow and Edwin Rubenstein warned of its dangers in the pages of National Review in the 1990s. Steve Sailer later argued that Republicans would fare better by targeting white voters. The problem with these observations was not their accuracy, but their audience. The GOP establishment and donor elites had little interest in such thinking until Donald Trump's breakthrough in 2016. But what happens when Trump leaves office? Will the GOP return to its old ways, as Trump's former chief of staff Reince Priebus has predicted ? The answer is almost certainly no. The reasons have little to do with the GOP elite, however, whose views have not substantially changed. They instead have everything to do with what is happening in the other party. As Brimelow and Rubenstein recently pointed out in VDARE (and as I did at American Renaissance ), while the nation is not expected to reach majority-minority status until 2045 , the Democratic Party is already approaching that historic milestone. The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible. The developments that are unfolding before our eyes are not a fluke, but the beginning of a new political realignment in the United States that is increasingly focused on race. The Emerging Majority-Minority Party While warnings of brewing demographic trouble were being ignored by the establishment right, they received a better reception on the left. In 2004, Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority that triumphantly predicted that demographic change would soon produce a "new progressive era." The theory's predictive powers waxed and waned over the years, but after Trump's 2016 election Teixeira and another coauthor, Peter Leyden, insisted that Democrats would soon sweep away an increasingly irrelevant GOP and forcibly impose their will, much as had already happened in California. These arguments have a glaring weakness, however. They assumed that Democrats would continue to draw the same level of support from white voters. Instead, many have been fleeing to the GOP. Throughout the 20 th Century, Democrats had won the presidency only by winning or keeping it close among these voters. Barack Obama was the first to break this pattern, defeating John McCain in 2008 while losing the white vote by 12 percent . Four years later he beat Mitt Romney while losing it by 20 percent . Hillary Clinton lost the white vote in 2016 by a similar 20-point margin . This loss of white support, coupled with the continued demographic change of the country, has helped push the Democratic Party toward majority-minority status. Since 1992, the white share of the Democratic presidential vote has dropped an average of about one percent per year. At its current rate, it could tip to majority-minority status by 2020. It will occur no later than 2024. The political consequences of this shift are already apparent. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with the overwhelming backing of black voters. Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in 2016 with similar black and Latino support . This year's state elections have continued the trend, with minority candidates winning Democratic gubernatorial nominations in Georgia , Texas , New Mexico , and Maryland , with another likely win in Arizona later this year. This sudden surge in minority candidates is not an indicator of increased open mindedness, but of demographic change. While the national Democratic Party is only just approaching majority-minority status, in much of the nation it is already there.

Nonwhite Polarization

While the demographic trend of the Democratic Party seems clear enough – as does its leftward drift and increased embrace of minority candidates – it is still possible to argue that the nation's politics will not divide along racial lines. The most obvious alternative is that both parties will compete for minority votes and both will experience demographic change in an increasingly multiracial nation. Could this happen? Black voters seem least likely to change. They already routinely provide Democrats with 90 percent of their votes. They are the backbone of the party, with a former president, nearly 50 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and numerous mayors in major American cities among their ranks. Given the Democratic Party's steadfast commitment to black issues such as affirmative action and Black Lives Matter, few are likely to be won over by the occasional attempts at Republican outreach . Latinos also typically support Democrats in presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin, but they have been a more serious target for Republicans, including President George W. Bush , his acolyte Karl Rove , authors of the GOP autopsy released after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and occasional writers in National Review . Some have observed that many Latinos value whiteness and are more likely to self-identify as white the longer they have been in the country. In fact, some Latinos are white , particularly those from Latin America's leadership class . Others have reported on substantial hostility that exists between Latinos and blacks that may make them more likely to see whites as natural allies. There are several problems with these arguments. The most important are persistent race-based IQ differences that will keep most mestizos (who are the bulk of Latino immigrants) trapped at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum regardless of their racial identification. Arguments that they will assimilate like their European predecessors fail to explain why racial hierarchies have persisted in their home nations for hundreds of years. These inequalities probably explain the high levels of Hispanic support for government programs that are likely to keep most of them tied to the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. Although Asians also support Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin, they seem potentially more promising . Unlike America's black and Latino populations, East Asians (such as Japanese and Chinese) have IQs that may be slightly higher than that of white Americans on average. Moreover, affirmative action policies backed by Democrats typically work to their detriment . However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower . Finally, no matter what their nationality, Asians are generally unsympathetic to whites who want to restrict nonwhite immigration. Unsurprisingly, all of these reasons have contributed to Asians moving away from the Republican Party, not toward it. Some argue that Republicans have no choice but to accept demographic change and move left to gain minority support. The GOP may well move left in ways that are acceptable to its white working class base and help it with white moderates – such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. But it will never win a bidding war with Democrats for their base of minority voters, nor would the GOP base let it try.

White Polarization

White polarization is the mirror image of nonwhite polarization and its causes are similar. Numerous scholars have cited genetics as a basis for reciprocal altruism among closely-related kin and hostility toward outsiders among humans and in the animal kingdom in general. This ethnocentrism is instinctual, present among babies , and whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface. Academics sometimes argue that positive direct contact is a promising strategy for overcoming racial differences, but research has shown that the negative effects are more powerful – something a cursory glance at crime statistics would confirm. Rampant white flight and segregation in neighborhoods , schools , and personal relationships provide the most definitive evidence on the negative influence of direct contact. Its impact on voting is also well established, particularly for whites and blacks. The shift of white Southerners away from the Democratic Party after civil rights legislation was enacted in the 1960s was almost immediate and has remained strong ever since. White flight produced similar political advantages for Republicans in suburbs across the country during this period. Their advantage has softened since then, but primarily because the suburbs have become less white , not less segregated . White voting is similarly affected by proximity to Hispanics. White flight and segregation are a constant in heavily Latino areas in both liberal and conservative states. The resulting political backlash in places like California and Arizona has been well-documented and confirmed by academic research . Support for President Trump has also been shown to be highly correlated with white identity and opposition to immigration. These trends are expected to become stronger over time. Experimental research has shown that growing white awareness of demographic change makes them more conservative , less favorably disposed to minorities, and feel greater attachment to other whites. The effects are heightened the more whites think they are threatened . The associated ideological effects are just as important. The influence of ideology is obvious in socially conservative states like North Dakota and Kansas . However, the Democrats' growing leftward tilt has become an issue even in liberal states like those in New England, many of which now regularly elect Republicans as governors . In fact, liberal Massachusetts has had just one Democratic governor in the past quarter century. The power of leftist ideology to drive whites together may reach its zenith if Democrats resume their attack on segregation in neighborhoods and schools. De facto segregation has protected white liberals from the consequences of their voting decisions for years. If Democrats are returned to power, however, they appear ready to touch this electoral third rail .

International Lessons

Further evidence of racial polarization can be found by looking abroad. Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations – everywhere and throughout history . More recently, 64 percent of all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines . Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic polarization . Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide. Race-based identity politics are just a lower form of ethnic conflict. Like ethnic conflict more generally, the strength of such politics depends on the level of ethnic diversity and corresponding racial polarization. In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role . Politics and parties that are explicitly ethnically-based usually do not appear until much later, when a nation has become more diverse and has begun to suffer extreme racial polarization. Such politics have been shown to produce substantial ethnic favoritism . Their appearance is often a prelude to civil war or partition . The United States has not reached this stage, but its future can be seen in other nations that are further down the road. One example is Brazil. While the United States will not become majority-minority until 2045, Brazil reached that milestone in 2010 . For much of the 20 th Century, Brazil viewed itself as a harmonious racial democracy and a model for the rest of the world, but this image has been tarnished in recent years. The nation's changing demographics demonstrated their power with the election of Lula da Silva in 2002 and his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, in 2010. Support for these two presidents – both members of the leftist Workers Party – was concentrated in the largely black northern half of the country, while opposition was concentrated in the mostly white south . Their victories depended on the nation's changing demographics. Once elected, they rewarded their black supporters with substantial expansions of affirmative action and a new cash transfer system, called Bolsa Família, which disproportionately benefitted Afro-Brazilians. Since then, Brazil's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse . Rousseff was impeached after a massive corruption scandal in 2016. Crime has exploded . Black activists now deride the notion of " racial democracy " and have become more militant on racial issues. An explicitly black political party has also appeared. This has corresponded with a similar backlash in the white population. The leading candidate for the presidential election this year is Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes referred to as the Trump of the Tropics . A white separatist movement called the South is My Country is drawing substantial support. Brazilians are reportedly losing faith in democracy and becoming more receptive to military rule .

Changing Our Destiny

The preponderance of the evidence – domestic, international, historical, and scientific – suggests that American politics will continue to polarize along racial and ethnic lines. At least in the short term, Republicans will benefit as white voters flee from the other party. But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?

Various elements of the GOP establishment , including the business elite and pro-immigration donors like the Koch brothers , continue to hold substantial power within the party. Reince Priebus probably echoed their views when he said , "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and a traditional platform."

Such status quo thinking ignores too much. There are numerous signs that the party is changing. Trump's popularity within his own party is the second highest among all presidents since World War II, trailing only George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Congressional Never Trumpers like Bob Corker , Jeff Flake , and Mark Sanford have been defeated or stepped aside. Prominent columnists , analysts , and at least one former GOP leader are now declaring it Trump's party.

These changes are not solely about Trump, however. There were signs of change before his arrival. Eric Cantor's primary defeat in 2014 was widely attributed to softness on immigration, which met furious grassroots opposition . Moreover, if Trump's rise were merely a one-off event, we would not be seeing the simultaneous rise of nationalist movements in Europe, which is facing its own immigration crisis .

The more likely answer is that these changes reflect something more powerful than any individual, even the president of the United States. The same survival instinct that is present in all living creatures still burns brightly within the world's European peoples. Trump was not the cause, but a consequence – and we will not go gently into the night.

Patrick McDermott ( email him ) is a political analyst in Washington, DC.


Dale , June 30, 2018 at 4:15 am GMT

If the author was famous, he would be attacked relentlessly.

Cogent analysis of the current GOP.

The centralized state model is falling apart.

Jim Christian , June 30, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT

This ethnocentrism is instinctual, observable even among babies. Whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface.

Even the most vile race-virtuosos' ethnocentric instincts boil to the surface in the flight to "good schools" for their children. The "Good schools" rationale works for them. Gets them away from the city, away from those awful Blacks. It was always diversity for thee. The closest most liberals get to diversity is the Hispanic housekeeper. Because the Blacks, you know, they steal the liquor/silver/Waterford". Heard variations of this a million times..

mark green , June 30, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
Brilliant synthesis. Excellent article. Patrick McDermott hits it out of the ballpark, noting correctly that ethnocentrism is "instinctual". So true. So obvious. And this suppressed truth is just the tip of the iceberg. America lives under 'intellectual occupation'.

But the hardening scientific facts involving race, kinship, and phenotype are testament to the hollowness of 'anti-racist' rhetoric and ideologies that dominate so much of the American landscape.

These liberal creeds pretend to repudiate (all) 'racism' and bigotry, but in political fact, they strategically target only white Americans. This makes these lofty 'values' not only disingenuous but unfair and destructive.

Highfalutin (but bogus) liberalism has come to play a diabolical role. It undermines white cohesion and white solidarity. Meanwhile, from high above, irreversible demographic changes are being orchestrated.

MacDermott correctly observes that the West's unsought ethno-racial transformation is what's behind the reinvigoration of white identity in Europe and America. This at least is good news.

Says MacDermott:

"Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations -- everywhere and throughout history. More recently, 64 percent of all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic polarization. Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide."

Very true. Very important. And while MacDermott avoids mentioning a more obvious example, the most persistent expression of this phenomena can be seen in Israel/Palestine, where allegedly 'Semitic' Jews are doing whatever it takes to keep their lesser (Semitic) cousins at arms length–in this case, in the caged ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank.

Undue and uncompromising Jewish influence in Zio-America is allowing this race-born outrage to continue. Sadly, Israeli savagery routinely receives Zio-Washington's unconditional blessing, trillion-dollar subsidy, and unflinching diplomatic cover.

But besides the disputed territory and Israel's untouchable political power, what nourishes the endless Israel/Palestine impasse?

Jewish 'exceptionalism' is one key motivator.

The Chosen people are convinced that they are born vastly superior to their Semitic cousins.

Thus, strict segregation is required for the assurance of 'Jewish (genetic) continuity'. This objective however requires steadfast cruelty since the natives are still restless and rebelling.

Supremacism means never having to say you're sorry. This is especially true since, ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs could potentially lead to increased Jewish 'outmarriage' in Israel and consequently, the gradual reduction in Israeli (Jewish) IQ and Jewish 'exceptionalism' (supremacy).

Over time, potential genetic intermingling would very possibly undermine Jewish magnificence and therefore, Jewish cohesion. This could then translate into a loss of Jewish solidarity and 'community'. It's possible.

This downturn could subsequently affect Jewish wealth and power, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Jewish community desires.

Leaders of the global Jewish community are smart enough to envision this scenario and to prevent it from happening. They use The Holocaust (and it's potential re-0currance) as an all-purpose excuse. But it's phony. Self-segregation is a sacred, ancient Jewish value. Thus the glamorization of interracial romance is directed only at the goyim, as is the message of Open Borders. Just turn on your TV. It's there constantly.

These 'liberal, democratic' messages however are never advocated in Israel, nor are they directed at young Jews via Israeli TV, news, entertainment or education.

You will never see glamorous depictions of Jewish/Arab miscegenation on Israeli television, even though black/white 'family formation' on Jewish-owned mass media in America is ubiquitous.

Hostile US elites (Jews) apparently want non-Jewish whites to become mixed, brown. This racial objective however is anathema to Jewish values. It's strictly for the goyim.

Meanwhile, whites in America are not permitted to think or hold values like Israeli Jews, or to even express similar preferences inside the civilization that they and their forefathers created. This speaks volumes about the lack of freedom in America. Yes, we live under intellectual occupation.

For many Israeli Jews (the dominant thinking goes) strict segregation–if not active warfare–is the only sure way to maintain 'hafrada' (separation) for Jews in Israel since they are surrounded by tens of millions of similar-looking but 'unexceptional' Arabs.

Unlike America, walls (and segregation) remain sacred in Israel. But not here.

It's racist!

Iberiano , June 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm GMT
In fact, some Latinos are white, particularly those from Latin America's leadership class

I think the reality is, Latinos/Hispanics simply form lines like any group would do. I am white, all my fellow Hispanic friends are white, and we consider ourselves essentially an ethnicity within Whiteness, just like Italians, or high-caste French Creoles, White Persians, Lebanese or Jordanians.

The easiest way to tell if an "ethnic" is conservative or republican (outside of obvious virtue signalers), is to ask yourself, " Is this person white ?". Other than famous actors and political types that have the luxury being "liberal" (e.g. Salma Hayek) every day Hispanics, Persians and Arabs that are white, act, do and think, like every day White Anglo-Saxons, Germanics and Nordics–for the most part (obviously IQ plays a part). Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in IQ and mindset in the particulars between a Norman and a (white-ish) Sicilian, some IQ, some cultural, but if and when a civil war comes–no one will have ANY problem knowing where they and others stand and belong.

SunBakedSuburb , June 30, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
Reince Priebus: "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and traditional platform."

And that would be U.S. hegemony and market fundamentalism? Unlikely and unattractive. U.S. military dominance starves our society and enriches the national security state and the rogue regimes in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Market fundamentalism does not take into account human frailty, and would produce widespread desperation.

What can be gleaned from Mr. McDermott's instructive article is that, like it or not, identity needs to be included in the political lexicon of working class and middle class whites. Elite whites continue to cede power to blacks and browns in politics and business as the slide into Idiocracy accelerates. This is an opportunity for disaffected whites from the Democratic Party and Republican Trump supporters to form a coalition.

densa , June 30, 2018 at 7:00 pm GMT

The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible.

When Ted Kennedy was pushing the 1965 opening of our borders to atone for racism, he made repeated assurances that we would not end up where we ended up. He said the level of immigration would remain the same, the ethnic mix would not inundate America with immigrants from any particular place or nation, that the ethnic pattern of America would not be changed, and that we wouldn't have something crazy like a million immigrants a year, certainly not poor ones who would place a burden on citizens.

When Reagan's amnesty happened, again promises where made that we could and would keep our country. Now, it looks like Brazil is our future.

Elections are already being decided by racial votes of minorities, which aren't considered racist by that half of America that eagerly anticipates our demise. What a rude surprise they are in for when they discover they are still white and will be honorary deplorables once they no longer have political power.

But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?

Ha, Derbyshire doesn't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.

Fidelios Automata , June 30, 2018 at 7:37 pm GMT
Regarding my home state of Arizona, that 66% figure is an interesting anomaly. Except for my fellow writers, most of the white folks I know are pretty conservative. Many secretly supported Trump or voted Libertarian in protest of the lousy mainstream choices. Perhaps this is a reflection of white flight from California.
obwandiyag , June 30, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
You dense "scientific" racists can't see the forest for the trees, as is always the case. The importance of this election has nothing to do with demographics. But you wouldn't know that because all you want to do is scream raceracerace all de liblong day.

No. The importance of this race is that Ocasio-Cortez is "a strikingly perfect candidate, both in policy positions and refusal to take corporate money. She fits the identity politics profile without once using identity politics virtue-signaling to cover for lousy policies. This is shattering to the Clintonista crowd, who are spinning like tops."

Grow up.

WorkingClass , June 30, 2018 at 10:46 pm GMT
Post Imperial America will balkanize. There is plenty of room for four or more new republics. At least one of them will be white.
Seamus Padraig , June 30, 2018 at 10:59 pm GMT
@Jim Christian

Exactly. Whenever liberals ask 'How are the schools?', what they really mean is, 'How black are the schools?' Their hypocrisy is nauseating.

Seamus Padraig , June 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm GMT

However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower.

Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers? Those aren't typically low-IQ professions. Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain? Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?

In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role.

Yup. That's probably why the Democratic Party traded class war for race war.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 12:44 am GMT

Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers?

The advance guard in the US was the professional elite. Not so in the UK. Subcontinentals are much closer, or even below, average there. Even here, motel owners may outnumber doctors, scientists, and computer programmers combined.

Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain?

Yes.

And it's worse in Canada.

Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?

There are a billion more people in India than in the US. Do the arithmetic.

George , July 1, 2018 at 2:57 am GMT
Extremely low turnout led to Ocasio-Cortez Victory.

On Magical Thinking VS Sober Analysis of the Ocasio-Cortez Victory in NY

https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
OK. I'll make it simple for you because your understanding doesn't extend beyond simple.

Ocasio-Cortez is a very good candidate, and, unless she is co-opted–which, 99 out of a 100 (notice my use of "statistics," I mean damned lies, you statistics-worshipers) is the chance she will be–she is a hundred times better than Crowley the Clintonite hack. Racists are really stupid. They vote against their own interests, just like all "conservatives."

blank-misgivings , July 1, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
The author throws around 'left' and 'right' as if they transparently applied in the case of ethnic politics. I would argue that it has been the economic 'right' that has relentlessly pursued diversity of populations – quite arguably for millennia, and certainly in the last 50 years. Some sane economic leftists realize this, although they are an endangered and shrinking group.

However if it is the right that is the main mover in favor of diversity (empire preferred to nation state for the easier control of labor), I'm not sure what solutions there are. Whites voting for the Republican Party is not a long time viable solution since the owners of that party have fundamentally different interests than the white working class (as leftists have correctly pointed out over and over).

Brabantian , Website July 1, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
Quite a superbly-sourced and compellingly-argued article here from Patrick McDermott, extraordinarily well-done even by Unz standards

This article gives a very important snapshot of the USA political scene as a whole, one of the best I've read in some time

Thanks both to Mr McDermott and to Ron Unz for posting this, look forward to more from this author

jeppo , July 1, 2018 at 1:14 pm GMT
Ocasio's victory is a nightmare for the Democrats. The Leftist media is touting her as the future of the party, but her platform makes Obama look like a rightwing extremist.

- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Medicare for All
- Tuition-free public college
- Reduce prisons by 50%
- Defund ICE

But the real poison pill is her unwavering support for the Palestinians. I'm not making a value judgment on this or any other of her policies, but if the GOP can tag the next Democratic presidential candidate with Ocasio's worldview, then expect a Trumpslide in 2020.

What do the (((brains))) and (((primary funders))) behind the Democratic party think of this rising star? Here are some choice quotes from NY Jewish Week:

To some, the stunning victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an outspoken critic of Israel, over 10-term Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-Queens-Bronx), an Israel supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary is seen as another nail in the coffin of Democratic support for the Jewish state.

"If she maintains her anti-Israel stance, she will be a one-term wonder," predicted George Arzt, a New York political operative. "I don't think you can have someone with those views in New York City. If she moderates, she could win again. If she doesn't, there will be massive opposition to her -- maybe even a cross-over candidate from the Latino community with pro-Israel views."

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he sees Ocasio-Cortez's overwhelming victory -- she won with 57.5 percent of the vote -- as "another step in the ongoing divorce proceedings between the pro-Israel community and the Democratic Party."

Jeff Wiesenfeld, a former aide to both Republican and Democratic elected officials, said he read Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter and Facebook postings and said she has voiced opinions that are "downright hostile to Israel."

After 60 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military in May while attempting to breach the fence along the Israel-Gaza border, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protestors. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore."

"We have never stepped into a situation in New York City in which a member of Congress starts out hostile to us," he added. "This is a new frontier."

"While Jewish Democrats support much of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's domestic policy agenda, we disagree with her past statement regarding Israel, as well as her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel," it added. "In the coming days and months, we hope to learn more about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's views, but at the moment, her position on Israel is not in line with our values."

http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/ocasio-cortezs-israel-views-seen-as-troubling/

What will Jewish Democrats do if the Ocasio/DSA platform becomes mainstream in the Democratic party? Join up with the anti-Trump neocons and vote for a third party? While the Republicans can win nationwide elections without Jewish money and votes, there's no evidence that the Democrats can, at least not yet.

Another factor in Ocasio's surprise victory, as so delicately pointed out by the noted political analyst Andrew Anglin, is that:

"Furthermore, people want to f*ck her."

No shit. Her good looks and likeable personality mean that she's likely in the media spotlight to stay, no matter how much the MSM (((gatekeepers))) might want to shield the general public from her, ahem, "problematic" views.

As an aside, I believe her nationwide appeal is enhanced by her complete lack of the godawful, ear-grating Nuyorican accent so commonplace among her co-ethnics. In fact she speaks with a general American accent with barely even a hint of New Yorkese. I don't know if this is part of a generalized homogenization of regional accents throughout the country, or if she affects this dialect for personal and/or political reasons. Either way, it only adds to her appeal.

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, then Donald Trump will start looking more and more like the moderate adult in the room compared to the infantile, gibsmedat, tantrum-throwers on the far left. Which is terrible news for the Clintonite, corporate bloodsucker wing of the Dems, but fantastic news for the rest of us.

Gordo , July 1, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
@mark green

You are correct.

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them. You have no understanding whatsoever about the mood of the current polity.
jeppo , July 1, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT
@obwandiyag

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.

So what you're saying is that if there's one thing Trump supporters secretly want more than anything else, it's to abolish ICE. Yeah, no.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@blank-misgivings

Leftism is concerned with power, period.

Economics is just a tool to that end. When identity looked to be more productive, they pivoted quite gracefully.

Welfare bureaucrats derive their power from the poor, not the working, and there are many more poor abroad than at home. Creating a welfare state thus creates a giant constituency for importing more poor, and poorer.

One of the credos of realism has been "There are no angels, so set the devils against one another." As pie-in-the-sky as economists can be, they're closer to the truth on this one than the pro-regulation forces, who assume, by definition, that the regulators will be angels.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@jeppo

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.

So what you're saying is that if there's one thing Trump supporters secretly want more than anything else, it's to abolish ICE. Yeah, no.

This might be true in the Bronx, but what about the other 3,030 or so counties in the US?

llloyd , Website July 2, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
Americans, at least Unz reviewers, lump all Hispanic speakers into one category. Does Cortez even speak Spanish, except for her ethnic purposes? More important, a Puerto Rican origin is both Creole and Roman Catholic. That puts them in a category all their own. She has no love for Israel because her background did not come under the influence of the Christian Zionist Churches. Her black origins make her atavistically side with the Palestinians.
obwandiyag , July 2, 2018 at 4:08 am GMT
You have no clue about "Trump supporters." For your information, they will vote for anyone who shakes things up. Their second choice after Trump was Sanders. These are facts. Read 'em and weep.
Mishra , July 2, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@obwandiyag

The Establishment wants to pretend that these voters don't exist. Even though they tipped the election. Along with most people (even here) they want to keep everything in neat boxes labelled Right vs Left, Rep vs Dem, etc etc. Spares them the 'vexation of thinking'.

Mishra , July 2, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT

The Democratic Party IS Tipping!

Replace "The Democratic Party" with "America" and replace "IS Tipping!" with "HAS TIPPED" and you'll be much nearer the truth.

Ron Unz , July 2, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
Actually, I have a quite contrary view of the political implications of these shifts in racial demographics. For those interested, here's a link to a long article I published a few years ago on this same exact topic:

http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/

[Jul 15, 2018] Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting other countries to do the fighting.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [298] Disclaimer , July 15, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT

The Saker is missing the point of Anglo Warfare. Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting other countries to do the fighting.

Hence trying to tarpit Russia in Syria which Putin wisely did not fall for.

The Anglo-Zionist Empire would be foolish to directly confront Russia, so they won't. Instead they will seek to economically strangle Russia and turn close allies against her such as Ukraine.

This is something Russias weapons cannot protect itself with.

Kiza , July 15, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
I am very busy at the moment and have little time to comment. However, I did read the Saker's review of Martyanov's book and its comments. My small insight is that a son of a Soviet sovok and a son of White-Russian are cooperating. I always wanted for this to happen, but I still find it amazing and most significant. For me, it is a good explanation why modern Russia is so successful compared with US and Soviet Union. The Russians are mostly at peace with their 20th century history and look towards the future. Opposite to this, as the generals usually fight the previous war, US still fights a country which does not exist any more. The new Russian challenge is to fight the fifth column of the Russian Liberals, the lovers of the West, exemplified by Anatoly Elliot Karlin-Higgins, the customary Jewish ideologues with forked tongues.

My apology for using the disparaging word sovok, which I read for the first time in disparaging comments by the above mentioned big BSer.

Finally, it would be interesting if the current Russian and Chinese weapons development would initiate a weapons race which would help crush the already precarious US and Western financial system. It is not that US military spending is a problem as a percentage of GDP, but its further increase at this time could be the straw which broke camel's back. In my mind, Saker and Martyanov with their writing, as well as the Russian civilian and military leadership with their public statements, show an honest wish to deter the West from attacking Russia. But the unintended effect on somebody bound on world-supremacy will be to spend even more (as inefficiently as before) to gain back the supremacy. As I have written many times before, the only possible solution for the preservation of humanity is the financial collapse of the US/West .

Or maybe it is a bit like with the most recent US Presidential Election, the Russians win with either of the two terrible candidates winning. If US chase them in military technology development, they go bankrupt. If US do not chase them, they cannot attack Russia and China any more. Shaking down "the allies" for more money is already seriously destabilising the political order of the West. The overall direction of things is obvious.

Kiza , July 15, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@The Alarmist

Communication satellites were mentioned in the article, that is not LEO since the Motorola's Iridium died. Most if not all US military communication satellites are in the geo-sync orbit 36,000 km away. Any decent ASAT system would be targeting both GPS in LEO and C3 satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

[Jul 15, 2018] Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule. ..."
"... Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'. ..."
"... Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination. ..."
"... Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market. ..."
"... Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents. ..."
"... Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan. ..."
May 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies.

The question of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific political direction?

Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.

We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.

In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain; and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take reprisals.

Trump's Strategic Framework

The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule.

Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran

Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.

Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.

Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy.

Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah.

The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'.

Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch.

Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by sanctions.

Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China

Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.

Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of hostility.

However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved inspectors.

Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program.

Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance monitored quarterly by the US.

Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and restrictions on Chinese goods and services. Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis.

Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and dominate the Asian and world economy.

Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.

Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies.

His military intervention will inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately losing war.

Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US collaborators.

The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Tel Aviv's bombing will lead to counter-attacks in Israel.

Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.

Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction.

Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for exports to the US.

China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia.

China has greater resilience and capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic power house.

Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world depression.

Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from China.

Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China.

Kim will offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal, Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.

Conclusion

Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.

Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents.

Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions.

Trump is heading for defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the process.

Epilogue

Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so.

Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia.

Nixon successfully promoted peaceful co-existence.

Trump is a master of defeats.


Realist , May 15, 2018 at 9:00 am GMT

Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea

The Deep State told him to.

Gordo , May 15, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT

industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations)

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Trump has no agenda of his own.

Per/Norway , May 15, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction."

indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the question.

The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the two fleet standard had to lowered to one fleet.

Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was lowered to one and half. What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria. In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East. Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975

The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.

But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'. I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:06 am GMT
@Per/Norway

I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.

Franklin Ryckaert , May 16, 2018 at 9:59 am GMT
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan.
Kirt , May 16, 2018 at 10:59 am GMT
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
JoaoAlfaiate , May 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
You haven't convinced me he isn't a psychopath.
Joe Hide , May 16, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup" took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing, agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting for Russia in Syria, etc. etc. Xi of China has pretty impressive credentials but this post is overly long anyway.
RESULTS CANT MORE THAN WORDS!
TT , May 16, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
@Gordo

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

• Agree: CalDre

I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things, ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous whining.

When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as it did for WTO & Globalization now.

Of course any moronic comments about only China is esponaging US IPR & rise purely due to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.

[Jul 15, 2018] Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB thump drive.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jared Eliot , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm GMT

Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB thump drive. The bombshells in Robert Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers, hackers of DNC server, put a damper on Trump's one on one visit with Putin.

[Jul 15, 2018] Trump Marches Onward and Downward, by James Petras - The Unz Review

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [317] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT

Impact of transferring govt from public domain into private ownership

Oligarch/Pharaoh (TLD) massive wealth, personally owned
Private Corps (PC) (doing govt jobs, or possessing a govt monopoly or power)
Slave Drivers (SD) ( elected by the public to run the govt)
Public (P) ( those forced to accept only recourse is to vote & pay)

After Slave driver elected, discovers must answer to PC, not P, the voters.
PC = derive large % of corporate income from one of the following classes
A. private contractors doing govt jobs (banking, energy, private mercenary
armies, whatever, domestic or foreign or military contractors & 1 Oligarch/ Pharaoh who live in different places in the world). Please note PC layer collective contributions (advertising $s) support the privately owned media; enables them to collectively promote:hide, accelerate:retard programs as needed to adjust the behaviors and attitudes of the public.
Whole segments of the global economy belong to one or a few enterprises in each class of PCs. Substantial economic power and most political power hb transferred into private hands. Private corporations now have or control whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world, they can now operate transparent to (invisible or visible to) and independent of the politics of any nation. For example the exclusive right to produce electric power and to build the infrastructure to deliver that power to homes and businesses is domestic in nature, but if you look carefully you will see the same pharaohs or oligarchs own them. The patent that prevents all others from competing in the computer operating system market makes it possible for one corporation to control every computer in the world. Patents on search engine technology makes it possible for one privately owned, oligarch controlled corporation to determines whose website is find-able and whose website is not, to collect personal data on everyone worldwide, and to deny those who do not agree with the Oligarch.
Note: Privatized govt d/n care who the people elect. because all decisions and political power belongs to the oligarchs. Elected who fail to support the Oligarchs do not get re elected? The decisions, laws and use of govt resources are no longer in the hands of the voting public or their elected representatives.

Garbage collection example:

City A: 1,000,000 collection stops/month, govt runs garbage; price/ stop = $9/mo.

Total revenue = total cost ($9/stop X 12 mo X 1,000,000 = $108,000,000

Privatise Garbage collection (City grants franchise to corporation A)

Corporation A raises the price from $9/stop to $10/stop:

Total revenue = $10/stop X 12 mo X 1,000,000 stops =$120,000,000
less: Total cost = $ 9/stop X 12 mo X 1,000,000 stops=$108,000,000
Profit the franchise gave to the Franchise owner = $ 12,000,000
means each person in City A was forced to give
one of the private oligarch owned corporations
$12/yr from their pocket.

ACTOR TRUMP has done one thing: Trump has tried to changed which corporations are to be the recipients of the privatization deals. Putin and Trump both realize they need to counter the up and coming Indian, Iranian, and Chinese intrusion into the corporate markets their constituencies have traditionally enjoyed monopoly powers in. The deal with Putin is about the getting the CIA backed LNG business off Putin's back, but it is a problem for Trump, because wall street and London have invested heavily in the LNG. LNG explains why Bush, jr entered the White house, why 9/11 was produced, and why Iraq was invaded, the gas lines to Europe at the Ukraine were taken over politically, Why Turkey was a big player early on in the Syrian invasion, why Libya was obliterated, why the Morsey teams in Egypt were destroyed, and why the CIA invented ISIS invasion into Syria, why the Saudis have agreed to wipe Yemen of the map and raise production by 1,000,000 bbls/day when the world has already a gut of oil and why Oligarchs in Iran and Russia have been sanctioned.

But the unmentioned player in all of this, is those who, pledge their allegiance to Israel?

So what does the article say?

[Jul 14, 2018] McMaken The Military Is A Jobs Program... For Immigrants Many Others

Jul 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:45 12 SHARES Authored Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

On the matter of immigration, even many commentators who support ease of migration also oppose the extension of government benefits to immigrants.

The idea, of course, is that free movement of labor is fine, but taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize it. As a matter of policy, many also find it prudent that immigrants ought to be economically self sufficient before being offered citizenship. Switzerland, for instance, makes it harder to pursue citizenship while receiving social benefits.

This discussion often centers around officially recognized "welfare" and social-benefits programs such as TANF and Medicaid. But it is also recognized that taxpayer-funded benefits exist in the form of public schooling, free clinics, and other in-kind benefits.

But there is another taxpayer-supporter program that subsidizes immigration as well: the US military.

Government Employment for Immigrants

Last week, the AP began reporting that " the US Army is quietly discharging Immigrant recruits ."

Translation: the US government has begun laying off immigrants from taxpayer-funded government jobs.

It's unclear how many of these jobs have been employed, but according to the Department of Homeland security, "[s]ince Oct. 1, 2002, USCIS has naturalized 102,266 members of the military ."

The Military as a Jobs Program

Immigrants, of course, aren't the only people who benefit from government jobs funded through military programs.

The military has long served as a jobs programs helpful in mopping up excess labor and padding employment numbers. As Robert Reich noted in 2011 , as the US was still coming out of the 2009 recession:

And without our military jobs program personal incomes would be dropping faster. The Commerce Department reported Monday the only major metro areas where both net earnings and personal incomes rose last year were San Antonio, Texas, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. -- because all three have high concentrations of military and federal jobs.

He's right. While the private sector must cut back and re-arrange labor and capital to deal with the new economic realities post-recession, government jobs rarely go away.

Because of this, Reich concludes "America's biggest -- and only major -- jobs program is the U.S. military."

Reich doesn't think this is a bad thing. He only highlights the military's role as a de facto jobs program in order to call for more de jure jobs programs supported by federal funding.

Given the political popularity of the military, however, it's always easy to protect funding for the military jobs programs than for any other potential jobs programs. All the Pentagon has to do is assure Congress that every single military job is absolutely essential, and Congress will force taxpayers to cough up the funding.

Back during the debate over sequestration, for example, the Pentagon routinely warned Congress that any cutbacks in military funding would lead to major jobs losses, bringing devastation to the economy.

In other words, even the Pentagon treats the military like a jobs program when it's politically useful.

Benefits for enlisted people go well beyond what can be seen in the raw numbers of total employed. As Kelley Vlahos points out at The American Conservative , military personnel receive extra hazard pay "even though they are far from any fighting or real danger." And then there is the "Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CZTE) program which exempts enlisted and officers from paying federal taxes in these 45 designated countries. Again, they get the tax break -- which accounted for about $3.6 billion in tax savings for personnel in 2009 (the combat pay cost taxpayers $790 million in 2009)– whether they are really in danger or not."

There's also evidence that military personnel receive higher pay in the military than do their private-sector counterparts with similar levels of education and training.

Nor do the benefits of military spending go only to enlisted people. The Pentagon has long pointed to its spending on civilian jobs in many communities, including manufacturing jobs and white-collar technical jobs.

This, of course, has long been politically useful for the Pentagon as well, since as political scientist Rebecca Thorpe has shown in her book The American Warfare State , communities that rely heavily on Pentagon-funded employment are sure to send Congressmen to Washington who will make sure the taxpayer dollars keep flowing to Pentagon programs.

Whether you're talking to Robert Reich or some Pentagon lobbyist on Capitol Hill, the conclusion is clear: the military is both a jobs program and a stimulus program. Cut military spending at your peril!

Military Spending Destroys Private Sector Jobs

The rub, however, is that military spending doesn't actually improve the economy. And much the money spent on military employment would be best spent on the private, voluntary economy.

This has long been recognized by political scientist Seymour Melman who has discussed the need for "economic conversion," or converting military spending into other forms of spending. Melman observes :

Since we know that matter and energy located in Place A cannot be simultaneously located in Place B, we must understand that the resources used up on military account thereby represent a preemption of resources from civilian needs of every conceivable kind.

Here, Melman is simply describing in his own way what Murray Rothbard explained in Man, Economy, and State . Namely, government spending distorts the economy as badly as taxation -- driving up prices for the private sector, and withdrawing resources from private sector use.

Ellen Brown further explains :

The military actually destroys jobs in the civilian economy. The higher profits from cost-plus military manufacturing cause manufacturers to abandon more competitive civilian endeavors; and the permanent war economy takes engineers, capital and resources away from civilian production.

But, as a classic case of "the seen" vs. "the unseen," it's easy to point to jobs created by military spending. How many jobs were lost as a result of that same spending? That remains unseen, and thus politically irrelevant.

Military fan boys will of course assure us that every single military job and every single dollar spent on the military is absolutely essential. It's all the service of "fighting for freedom." For instance, Mitchell Blatt writes , in the context of immigrant recruits, "I'm not worried about the country or origin of those who are fighting to defend us. What matters is that our military is as strong as it can be." The idea at work here is that the US military is a lean machine, doing only what is necessary to get the job done, and as cost effectively as possible. Thus, hiring the "best" labor, from whatever source is absolutely essential.

This, however, rather strains the bounds of credibility. The US military is more expensive than the next eight largest militaries combined . The US's navy is ten times larger than the next largest navy. The US's air force is the largest in the world, and the second largest air force belongs, not to a foreign country, but to the US Navy.

Yet, we're supposed to believe that any cuts will imperil the "readiness" of the US military.

Cut Spending for Citizens and Non-Citizens Alike

My intent here is not to pick on immigrants specifically. The case of military layoffs for immigrants simply helps to illustrate a couple of important points: government jobs with the military constitute of form of taxpayer-funded subsidy for immigrants. And secondly, the US military acts as a job program, not just for immigrants but for many native-born Americans.

In truth, layoffs in the military sector ought to be far more widespread, and hardly limited to immigrants. The Trump Administration is wrong when it suggests that the positions now held by immigrant recruits ought to be filled by American-born recruits. Those positions should be left unfilled. Permanently.


cougar_w Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:53 Permalink

No you retarded fuck, the military is a taxpayer-funed merc army supporting the overseas hegemonic goals of American-style Corporatism . That the military is full of the sons and daughters of poor people is only because rich whites won't send their trustfund babies to kill brown people for oil.

Smedley Butler, 1935: " War is a Racket "

How anyone still gets this wrong is symptomatic of too much inbreeding.

Expendable Container -> cougar_w Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:58 Permalink

The military is a taxpayer-funded merc army supporting Isra hell's goals none of which benefit the US.

cougar_w -> Expendable Container Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:12 Permalink

No, asshole. It's about money. About cash and gold. Profit. Markets. Growth. About cheap or free resources. Access to labor. New customers.

War makes companies rich, it might be the ONLY way they can get rich. War is waged when GM wants to sell trucks to the Pentagon. When Boeing wants to sell jets. When MIT wants money for arms research. When NATO wants a reason to exist. The dogs of war are loosed when oil gets tight. When countries won't "accept our cultural freedoms". When trade agreements aren't enough to open up new markets.

Isreal has fleeting nothing to do with it, except maybe when war aligns with their perceived need for hegemony in their own sphere. But by loading all this on Isreal you encourage others to miss the real fox in the henhouse. You could wipe Isreal off the Earth tomorrow and still have wars for profit for a thousand years to come.

This nation was born in war. It has practiced war since that day and will be at war with the rest of the world until humans are killed to the last and the last ounce of profit from war is had.

TeethVillage88s -> cougar_w Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:08 Permalink

or from systematic corruption of all US Institutions and the politicization of all US Institutions... you need a job, you want to work here, you say this, and you do this, ... tow the line, no politics, no whistleblowing,... and we won't blackball your ass from the industry... got it... u got debts, keep ur nose clean!

Idiocracy's Not Sure Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:56 Permalink

the US military has slacking pay.

Quantify -> Idiocracy's Not Sure Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:58 Permalink

Yes the pay sucks but you get more done before 8am than most people do in a week. But seriously its a pretty good gig in the long run. Medical care a decent retirement system, travel a chance to meet and integrate with different cultures and kill them...its pretty cool.

AudiDoug Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:17 Permalink

Excluding a small percentage, the military is much like the DMV. We have a cartoon vision of all enlisted being GI Joe, ready to grab a gun and fight evil. This in not the case at all. Most positions are very simple, repetitive bureaucratic positions. Really is a giant Jobs program to keep people busy.

Debt Slave Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:22 Permalink

"The idea at work here is that the US military is a lean machine, doing only what is necessary to get the job done, and as cost effectively as possible."

Then why are we still in Afghanistan?

No need to answer, the question is rhetorical.

DingleBarryObummer Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:59 Permalink

Support our B̶a̶n̶k̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ Troops!

[Jul 13, 2018] Brennan insinuations are related to attempts to preserve the American empire

Notable quotes:
"... When one believes that patriotism and defense of empire must be synonymous, and that skepticism of international conflict implies sympathy with a foreign power, it is easy to see why someone would seek out the most nefarious answer. ..."
"... But when one is an empire, the indispensable nation, rules just don't apply to it like they do to other, lesser countries. "He [Rohrabacher] is widely suspected of having an ulterior motive." What Chait means is his cocktail party peers widely suspect it. ..."
"... But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun. ..."
"... Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc. ..."
"... It's like a prostitute getting out from under her John and complaining in all seriousness about who a man is looking at her legs. It's positively bizarre. ..."
"... Posting Trump as a decision maker is making fun of the global deplorables as being dull. He is an insider joke, as Hillary, in case someone might misfire. ..."
"... As for Brennan, corporate animals as Brennan do strictly nothing that is grounded in original thought, has any kind of career risk, requires physical courage. Corpses keeping corpses warm. Ah, what a time in history to be a journalist, an artesan of linear fairy and horror. How far away from any meaningfulness. The middle classes, digging their own demise. ..."
"... In fact, the crooked Russians Trump knows are small fry among the CIA agents that looted Russia under CIA's puppet ruler Yeltsin. Felix Sater bragged about it, till they shut him up. Trump aided Russian capital flight by helping Russian crooks and traitors launder their money in real estate (because you don't get to be president without running lots of errands for CIA.) It is a truism that the best oppo is slightly distorted tales of the candidate's dirty work for CIA. That way party dupes foam at the mouth demonizing their enemy figurehead and forget about CIA, who runs them all. ..."
"... As for John Brennan, the walking conspiracy machine, he is the godfather of the U.S. intelligence (civilian) war against outsider Trump. ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

The former intelligence official Chait trots out as an example is John O. Brennan, who has gone on the record saying there is something fishy about the Trump-Russia relationship that might even breach on treasonous. "While the fact that the former CIA director has espoused this theory hardly proves it, perhaps we should give more credence to the possibility that Brennan is making these extraordinary charges of treason and blackmail at the highest levels of government because he knows something we don't." Contrary to that impression, Brennan's statements should make one very skeptical. Or at least that's the logical conclusion of anyone outside the establishment groupthink previously described. If the former CIA director knows something the public doesn't, why has no action been taken? If there is solid, irrefutable evidence that Donald Trump has been compromised by a foreign power, why is John Brennan keeping it secret? Congress should be alerted, and Vice President Pence sworn in under the Twenty-fifth Amendment. But in two years since the original start of the investigation, Brennan has presented no such evidence. In fact, using Brennan as the example shows how blind one can be when only seeing life through the establishment paradigm. As CIA director, John Brennan not only provided a real-guard defense of torture , but oversaw U.S. military aid to Syrian jihadists allied with Al-Qaeda. If Donald Trump is a traitor to his country, what does that make Brennan and his aiding and abetting of America's sworn enemy? The actions of the Obama administration are widely sourced and admitted by public officials, but Chait pays no mind. That's because people like Chait don't see crimes committed in defense of the empire as real crimes.

Chait opens his chronology in the year 1987, when Donald Trump both visited Moscow on a business trip and began voicing open political sentiments. Trump's comments focused on the United States' relationship with its allies, saying Americans were getting a raw deal. "The safest assumption is that it's entirely coincidental that Trump launched a national campaign, with himself as spokesman, built around themes that dovetailed closely with Soviet foreign-policy goals shortly after his Moscow stay." Chait is nothing short of duplicitous here, admitting that the whole premise reaches nothing above coincidental while simultaneously trying to poison the waters. As Trump said, why shouldn't countries that can afford to defend themselves do so? Why does the burden fall on the American taxpayer to defend the economically rich people of Germany and Japan? The answer, Chait says, is to defend the "liberal international order" of the postwar era. An order that requires U.S. military domination of the planet. Having other countries defend themselves would take away from U.S. preeminence, and most importantly, U.S. power. The idea of Americans protecting America only would at first glance to be the logical, even pro-American answer. But it is certainly the anti-hegemony answer, and to Chait that puts it in the category of a pro-Soviet goal.

In a single sentence, Chait tries to both summarize and dismiss the downturn in Russian-American relations that accelerated during Barack Obama's second term. "During the Obama administration, Russia grew more estranged from the United States as its aggressive behavior toward its neighbors triggered hostile responses from NATO." Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect Chait to detail Russian relations with the West over the past 25 years, such as NATO expansion eastward in contradiction to previous promises , the U.S. withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, or the 2008 Russo-Georgian War with violence initiated by the latter . But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest. In February of 2014 the democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the United States government, an event Chait and his peers do their best to forget . Russia's subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula (containing the Russian naval base at Sevastopol) was a wholly reactive measure. To say the recent estrangement was triggered by anything else than western aggressive behavior is factually inaccurate.

A deep-dive into Paul Manafort's past relationships fills the middle of the article, along with Chait's biased perceptions. "This much was clear in March 2016: The person [Manafort] who managed the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine was now also managing the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate in the United States." What makes Donald Trump pro-Russian? "Well I hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying it for years. I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good relationships with Russia. That's very important," says the President. Donald Trump has not proposed any kind of military alliance with Russia, giving it financial aid of any kind, or granting it favored-nation status. Simply to want "good" relations with a country is enough to be pro-Russian, in Chait's characterization. Does that make Trump pro-any country he doesn't wish to bomb? Is Donald Trump equally pro-Peruvian, pro-Nepalese, and pro-Tanzanian as he is pro-Russian? Shouldn't it be the proper view of the United States to try to have good working relations with all foreign powers, especially if that power has thousands of stockpiled nuclear weapons? A better description of that view would be pro-American .

It is important to emphasize and explain these seemingly small choices of language because of how much they reveal of Chait's worldview. When one believes that patriotism and defense of empire must be synonymous, and that skepticism of international conflict implies sympathy with a foreign power, it is easy to see why someone would seek out the most nefarious answer. Chait is willing to overlook obvious, mundane explanations to imply Trump has committed wrong because to Chait, he already has by opposing the international order's chosen script. "It is possible to construct an innocent explanation for all the lying and skulduggery [sic], but it is not the most obvious explanation. More likely, collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration has continued beyond the campaign." Or, perhaps, politics is naturally a game for liars and the political world is specially made to house them. "Why would Manafort, who has a law degree from Georgetown and years of experience around white-collar crime, behave like this? Of all those in Trump's camp, he is the furthest thing from a true believer, and he lacks any long-standing personal ties to the president or his family, so what incentive does he have to spend most or all of his remaining years in prison rather than betray Trump?" The most obvious answer would seem to be that there is nothing to betray; if there is no grand conspiracy of Russian collusion, Manafort has not spilled the beans for any reason more inexplicable than there is nothing to spill. Or if that's too boring, there's always the answer Chait is giddy to suggest. "One way to make sense of his behavior is the possibility that Manafort is keeping his mouth shut because he's afraid of being killed." Creativity knows no bounds.

Chait seeks comfort in those who might be even further down the establishment paradigm than he is. He describes an exchange between House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the summer of 2016 where they joke about Trump and California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher being on Russian President Vladimir Putin's payroll. While criticizing the GOP leaders' joke as in bad taste, he describes the foreign policy positions taken by Rohrabacher. He once again uses the phrase "pro-Russian" to describe them, falling into the same verbal trap as before. Of interest, Chait mentions Rohrabacher's denouncement of U.S. opposition to the Crimean annexation as "hypocrisy" considering America's foreign policy. The implication is that this is some sort of hokum, but it is nothing more than showing American self-awareness. Verbal reproaches to Russia by the U.S. government are drown out by the facts, including the overthrow of the Ukrainian government just days before Russian actions in Crimea, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq which stands to this day as the biggest crime of the 21 st century. But when one is an empire, the indispensable nation, rules just don't apply to it like they do to other, lesser countries. "He [Rohrabacher] is widely suspected of having an ulterior motive." What Chait means is his cocktail party peers widely suspect it.

What follows is a description of Trump's actions as President regarding Russia, which seem to belie Chait's point of a special closeness. Trump was apparently "apoplectic" when political realities compelled him to sign new sanctions on Russia in the summer of 2017. Since those sanctions ran counter to the explicit platform Trump campaigned and won on, that would seem to be a normal reaction to any policy reversal. Trump says he thinks Russia should be allowed back into the G7. The idea that a geopolitical power player that approaches nuclear parity with the United States should be involved in such a global forum doesn't require further explanation. During that G7 conference Trump expressed the belief that Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia because the people there speak Russian. He's not wrong; the people of Crimea are ethnically Russian, speak the language, and culturally identify with Russia proper. The people of Crimea should have the right to vote in a fair, internationally monitored referendum on whether to be a part of Ukraine or Russia. That's the right of self-determination, an American goal if there ever was one. Chait says Putin engineered the end of the U.S.-South Korea military exercises during the recent negotiations with North Korea. Such an insinuation, outright ignoring the months of talks that have been taking place between North and South Korea, the stated goals of the Moon Jae-in administration, and South Korean public opinion, is naïve to the highest degree. That sort of western-centric view, that the United States is always the decision maker, is further proof of the establishment imperialistic mindset Chait has written his entire article from. He concludes with the foreboding note that Trump is about to meet with Putin in a special summit next month. Somehow Trump meeting with Putin 19 months into his presidential term is scandalous, while George Bush meeting Putin 5 months into his term, and Barack Obama 6 months into his term (in Moscow no less!) garnered so such suspicious coverage.

Chait, to his credit, almost makes it through the entire article without pulling out one of the most overused, most debunked storylines of "Russiagate." The storyline that anyone who says Russia was not behind the 2016 Democratic National Committee hack (or leak ) is " contradicting the conclusion of every U.S. intelligence agency." That conclusion was reached not by the U.S. intelligence community but handpicked analysts from only four of seventeen agencies. "But who is bending the president's ear to split the Western alliance and placate Russia? His motive for these foreign-policy moves is obviously strong enough in his mind to be worth prolonging an investigation he is desperate to terminate." It cannot be that good relations with Russia is self-evidently beneficial to the United States, or that Donald Trump is a genuine believer in that policy. Jonathan Chait is so enamored with established Washington foreign policy that no disagreement can be anything other than odious.

To reiterate, Jonathan Chait is not convinced that what he wrote is the truth. He admits that there is no conclusive evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian intelligence asset in 1987 or any other year. But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun. The biases of his language towards permanent military hegemony run through his writing. This leads to the discoloring or even misrepresentation of the facts.

Hunter DeRensis is a senior at George Mason University majoring in History and minoring in Public Policy & Administration. You can follow him on Twitter [@HunterDeRensis]


Miro23 , July 12, 2018 at 5:14 am GMT

But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun.

He's channeling Lenin/Trotsky:

But what they were convinced about was the utility of the Bolshevik led soviet world order imposed at the point of a gun.

Same people, same totalitarianism, same repression – the difference is that the U.S. totalitarians don't quite yet have the absolute power they need to liquidate the "Deplorables".

Colin Wright , Website July 12, 2018 at 6:04 am GMT
The truly absurd thing about all this is that people profess concern about Russia influencing our poloitical process. If she does, it's in various ways so haphazard, trivial, marginal, and ineffectual as to verge on the illusory.

Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc.

It's like a prostitute getting out from under her John and complaining in all seriousness about who a man is looking at her legs. It's positively bizarre.

If only Russian influence was all we had to worry about. Let's get that Israeli implant out of our cerebral cortex -- then think about whether that Russian fungus on our toenail really is a problem.

Biff , July 12, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
@Colin Wright

Doesn't the story of the little boy who cried wolf apply here?

Yes, but point being that this seems to be the consensus among the many factions – mostly of the left (aka soft neoliberals --NNB) , and the retarded left(those who think the Democratic Party has their back, known as RL – Retarded Left). But some on the hard right are on board too.

As many contrary, but not mainstream, articles have pointed out – it's faith based, like a religion. No hard evidence is ever needed, and that is why it keeps getting more cult-like the more time goes by. Soon there will be a condition named for all the nonbelievers, and medications prescribed.

Biff , July 12, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT
@Colin Wright

Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc.

It would be interesting to see a poll of how many Americans really understand that? 1% maybe? I don't know, but that's the rub – how effective the corporate owned media has over the mass mentality of their captive audience.

jilles dykstra , July 12, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
Yesterday evening, here in the Netherlands, I saw a former Obama adviser interviewed, who complained about the Atlantic alliance having been built up in 70 years destroyed in a few days.
Knowing nothing about history and obvious facts seems to be the rule these days.
Until 1917 Europe had intensive trade with Russia.
Why not resume this trade ?
m___ , July 12, 2018 at 8:07 am GMT

Potatoe times.

Meaning, since there is nothing much to write about in the heat of the Northern hemisphere, anything goes. A classic example of inducing irrelevant thought in braindeads. Trump, true or not? Well, Trump does not matter.

Posting Trump as a decision maker is making fun of the global deplorables as being dull. He is an insider joke, as Hillary, in case someone might misfire.

As for Brennan, corporate animals as Brennan do strictly nothing that is grounded in original thought, has any kind of career risk, requires physical courage. Corpses keeping corpses warm. Ah, what a time in history to be a journalist, an artesan of linear fairy and horror. How far away from any meaningfulness. The middle classes, digging their own demise.

This summer will see more then usual "snatch a bone" and have the pack run with it. Amen.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 12, 2018 at 9:08 am GMT
Trump visits unsteady, dilapidated Moscow in 1987. He notices that the USSR is not the all-powerful mega-threat it may have been in the 70s.

Trump also visits various glistening European capitals and notices the much higher level of development.

He then reads that America is paying for the defence of Europe against the USSR. He notices that this doesn't make sense. Europe has more than enough capacity to defend itself. America might better spend that money elsewhere.

Two decades later New York Times writer insinuates that Trump could be a sleeper Soviet agent for coming to this conclusion. Even though Trump was proven right by events.

Sally Snyder , July 12, 2018 at 11:30 am GMT
Here is an interesting historical look at how the United States responded when it believed that Russia/the USSR was using propaganda against Washington:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-united-states-and-russia-propaganda.html

Apparently, it's okay for Washington to lie about Russia but not the other way around.

peterike , July 12, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT
I really didn't read very far in this. But let's stop and end with Chait's comment:

"Russia was already broadcasting its strong preference for Trump through the media."

Well hmmm. Considering that Hillary was all but declaring war on Russia and an even-bet to get us into a shooting war with them, and considering that nearly all the other Republicans were members of NeoCon incorporated, and considering that Jewish media hysteria about Russia was ramping up by the day, and considering that Trump was the ONLY candidate poking holes in the NeoCon narrative, then Russia would have been pretty stupid NOT to prefer Trump.

Yeah, I might prefer the candidate who was far and away the least likely to drop nuclear bombs on my nation too.

Eighthman , July 12, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
It's simply amazing how such extreme story telling is allowed to avoid the fact that the US is wasting its resources on pointless conflicts thruout the world while the nation decays.

Also surprising? The fact that supposedly sane political and military leaders can continue to demand ever more conventional military spending based on a fantasy that war with China/Russia wouldn't go nuclear.

Where are the liberals with any principles? Or is that a contradiction in terms? Why not support Trump against the warmongers and fix the country instead?

Julia , July 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
The linchpin of the TrumpRussianSpy!!1! notion is identifying the Russian mafiya with the Russian government. Every crooked Russian gets the epithet Putin-linked, close to Putin, or some variant.

In its purest form you see Amy Knight writing in CIA house organ Daily Beast, "The real question is where does the Russian criminal state end and the criminal underworld begin, and how do they work together in what amounts to a new murder incorporated?" This is classic projection by CIA. It's CIA that recruits every kind of organized crime as agents and cutouts. They project this trait onto the entire Russian state.

In fact, the crooked Russians Trump knows are small fry among the CIA agents that looted Russia under CIA's puppet ruler Yeltsin. Felix Sater bragged about it, till they shut him up. Trump aided Russian capital flight by helping Russian crooks and traitors launder their money in real estate (because you don't get to be president without running lots of errands for CIA.) It is a truism that the best oppo is slightly distorted tales of the candidate's dirty work for CIA. That way party dupes foam at the mouth demonizing their enemy figurehead and forget about CIA, who runs them all.

nickels , July 12, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
A demoralized people (like the US) will believe anything.

It is pretty sickening to live through such a time, however.

Anon [277] Disclaimer , July 12, 2018 at 3:10 pm GMT
"As CIA director, John Brennan not only provided a real-guard defense of torture, but oversaw U.S. military aid to Syrian jihadists allied with Al-Qaeda. If Donald Trump is a traitor to his country, what does that make Brennan and his aiding and abetting of America's sworn enemy? "

Alinsky/Clinton rule: Always accuse your opponent of what YOU are doing.

... ... ...

anon [317] Disclaimer , July 12, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT
@DD

Why does no one believe the signals intelligence arms of USA allies, even if they say they stumbled upon communications between the Trump campaign and Russia (as far back as 2015) and became concerned enough to alert their US counterparts?

I respond to your question with an observation.. the intelligence arms of most of the nations are interlocked globally. The so called Intelligence groups have done so many regime changes, false flag operations, tv fake interviews, and contributed to so much false and misleading and war attitude generating propaganda, that no one believes . If an intelligence group were to say it was raining outside, those outsiders interested to know, would have to go look for themselves.

As long as leaders of nations, elected, military, contractor, or bureaucrat operate in secret, make people who work for them sign NDAs, criminalize truth speaking whistle blowers, operate as super top secret projects, redirect public socially needed money to fund war machines, use technology and access to spy on people, or threaten the lives or well being of human beings who happened to live in a nation that is unfriendly, for no apparent or valid public stated reason, no reasonable person will ever believe the signal intelligence arms of USA or its allies.. Colin Powell comes to mind! Secrecy, intentional falsity, 24/7 surveillance, controlled, limited and gated access to knowledge or information, and silence maintained when the facts should have been make known, has produced a "public enemy at large" response.

if these agencies presented a hungry angry wolf in plain view, most people would wonder "what is it" in disguise. One of the first rules in taking over a nation, is to prevent those who lead from being heard. So not having reliable information constitutes a very dangerous situation, but it is one that cannot be easily remedied until 9/11, Holocaust, and all kinds of global events are completely and fully disclosed, and those responsible held accountable.

Eighthman , July 12, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
@utu

It was a speech given to veterans before the election in which she nearly promised military confrontation with Russia in response to supposed cyber attacks. Shown on YouTube, ignored by MSM.

SunBakedSuburb , July 12, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

"Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics "

Yep. It is also third rail to discuss how Israel and Saudi Arabia often work in tandem to influence U.S. foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has the mountain of cash; Israel has the Mossad. Jeffrey Epstein is an example of this influence operation at work. As for John Brennan, the walking conspiracy machine, he is the godfather of the U.S. intelligence (civilian) war against outsider Trump.

[Jul 13, 2018] Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and a variety of other globalist-hating Hitler-alikes form "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary States" (the "AARS ) conspired to disband the European Union and NATO by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Here it comes, the moment we've been waiting for, when Trump and Putin meet in Helsinki to officially launch the Destruction of Democracy, and very possibly the Apocalypse itself. That's right, folks, once again, it appears we're looking at the end of everything, because according to the corporate media, on July 16, 2018, Trump is probably going to disband NATO so that Putin can invade the Baltic states, then Germany, then the rest of Europe, and then presumably order an all-out thermonuclear strike on the United States, which will pretty much end civilization as we know it. Or perhaps the plan is to do away with NATO, withdraw all American troops from Poland , let Putin rape and pillage Western Europe, and then have North Korea nuke both coasts of the US mainland (and Canada, of course) so that a Putin-Nazified Middle Amerika will have carte blanche to exterminate the Mexicans and make women wear those "Handmaid" costumes, or some other ridiculously paranoid scenario, possibly involving Susan Sarandon as some kind of Putin-Nazi triple agent.

Tragically, the global neoliberal establishment is completely powerless to stop Trump and Putin from carrying out this evil scheme (whatever it turns out to be in the end), because even the US Intelligence Community has to obey the law, after all, and not do anything sneaky, or unethical, not even with the fate of democracy at stake. No, unlike the Russians, who go around blatantly poisoning people with novichok oatmeal more or less whenever they like, the global capitalist ruling classes' hands are tied by their own integrity. All they can do is watch in horror as these two Hitlerian megalomaniacs destroy their entire global empire and establish a thousand-year Putin-Nazi Reich.

Thank God at least the corporate media are raising their collective voices in protest. In a recent piece in The Washington Post , Max Bergmann of the Center for American Progress warns that "this is a summit about appeasement, and we should be terrified that Trump is going to sell out America and its allies." According to Bergmann, Trump might "accidentally" share state secrets with Putin, or promise to reduce support for our freedom-loving Ukrainian Nazis , or stop trying to overthrow the Syrian government so that Syria, with the help of Russia and Iran, can launch a sneak attack on Israel and drive "the Jews" into the sea. Worse still, Bergmann speculates, he might make "secret agreements" with Putin without telling the editors of The Washington Post , which God help us all if that ever happened.

Not to be out-apocalypsed by The Post , Roger Cohen of The New York Times published a full-blown dystopian vision wherein Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and a variety of other globalist-hating Hitler-alikes form "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary States" (the "AARS"), disband the European Union and NATO, impose international martial law, and start ethnically cleansing the West of immigrants. Matteo Salvini and Horst Seehofer, decked out in full Putin-Nazi regalia, personally supervise the genocidal purges, which frightened Europeans come to support after Putin's irresistible "fake news" bots brainwash them into believing that a little Russian girl named "Tatiana" has been abducted by Moroccan migrants off a beach along the Costa del Sol.

... ... ...

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Jul 12, 2018] Challenging Chait s Paradigm by Hunter DeRensis

Jul 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest. In February of 2014 the democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the United States government, an event Chait and his peers do their best to forget . Russia's subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula (containing the Russian naval base at Sevastopol) was a wholly reactive measure. To say the recent estrangement was triggered by anything else than western aggressive behavior is factually inaccurate.

Quartermaster , July 12, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT

But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest.

You lost me at that point. There was no coup in 2014. That's simply a Putinist lie. Yanukovich ran when he was going to be brought to book for the murders he ordered on the Maidan. He was interviewed last year and was completely evasive when it came to questions about the killings he ordered. He's now a fugitive from justice and was righteously removed from office when he ran for asylum in Russia.

It's long past time for idiots like yourself to get the facts and quit parroting Putin's lies.

hyperbola , Next New Comment July 12, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Why I Quit the Democratic Party Yesterday

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-I-Quit-the-Democratic-by-Eric-Zuesse-Congress-Democrats_Congress-Republican-GOP_Democracy_Democrats-DNC-140815-725.html

I left the Democratic Party yesterday, because I cannot support the first American President who ever installed anywhere in the world a nazi regime -- it has never happened before, not even under a Republican President; and, until Obama, I had always assumed that if it ever would happen, it could come only under a Republican President, never under any Democratic one. But I was wrong -- mortifyingly wrong -- because Barack Obama did this in Ukraine (see here and here for the evidence); he is the first-ever U.S. President to install a nazi regime anywhere, and so I wrote to my Representative seeking Obama's impeachment by the Democrats in Congress; and, yesterday, that person, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, told me that, notwithstanding Barack Obama's having unquestionably done this, this Democratic Representative will not introduce on the floor of the U.S. House (which is the only place where a bill of impeachment can be introduced) a bill of impeachment against this -- what is the appropriate term for such a person, if not a -- nazi U.S. President. (That's nazi as an ideology, racist fascist, not as a party designation, which is merely a party's name.) Simply because Obama calls himself a 'Democrat,' that Representative in the House will not introduce a bill to impeach him. There was no argument on the facts; the facts weren't at issue here at all; it's just that Obama calls himself a 'Democrat.' That's all ..

Ukraine's Pres. Poroshenko Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup

http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html

Participants in 2014 Ukrainian coup confess

http://washingtonsblog.com/2017/11/participants-2014-ukrainian-cup-confess.html

.. The Italian newspaper Il Giornale, and Italian Mediaset Matrix TV, Chanel 5, issued, on November 15th, confessions by a few of the snipers who on 20 February 2014 fired down into the crowd of "Maidan" demonstrators and police, in order "to sow chaos," as they say that they had been instructed to do.

The Georgian mercenary Alexander Revazishvilli said: "Everyone started shooting two or three shots at a time. It went on for fifteen, twenty minutes. We had no choice. We were ordered to shoot both on the police and the demonstrators, without any difference." This account is entirely consistent with the leaked phone-conversation on 26 February 2014 in which Urmas Paet, the investigator whom the EU had assigned to determine whom to blame for the snipers and their massive bloodshed during the overthrow, informed the EU's Foreign Affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, that the anti-Yanukovych, pro-U.S. and pro-EU side, were to blame, and that Paet had just been informed of this by Petro Poroshenko (who shortly thereafter became elected as Ukraine's figurehead President). Paet said: ..

Oliver Stone Exposes US Coup d'etat In Ukraine

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/17/oliver-stone-exposes-us-coup-detat-ukraine/

How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine

https://countercurrents.org/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/

[Jul 11, 2018] War is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite of peace

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Steve3455 , June 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the clergyman who defied the German Nazi regime and got executed for his resistance, once observed that "war is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite of peace." I might also add it is the opposite of freedom and civilization as well, because both require trust.

[Jul 11, 2018] Space Command is About to Launch! by Philip Giraldi

Trump bluster stars to look pretty unnerving. He really so not care or just can't calculate the reaction to his moves even a couple of moves forward. And that might be a joint Russia-China space forces. From comments: "Fools rush in where angels would fear to tread. And psychopaths see threats everywhere... "
Notable quotes:
"... I watched some of Ken Burns Vietnam documentary, and I was struck by how many times "Communist threat" was mentioned. It should be realized that "threat" and "security" are the first go-to bullshit terms out of the propaganda files. There is no threat, there are only "obstacles" in the way of domination. There are those who simply will never give up the attempt to dominate everything, including the moon, and the stars. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

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.


Carlton Meyer , Website June 26, 2018 at 4:24 am GMT

The US Army has a Space Brigade in Colorado with over 1000 soldiers, which I once suggested be eliminated to cut Army fat.

http://www.g2mil.com/armyfat.htm

1000 – Disband the 1st Space Brigade

The U.S. Strategic Command includes a forward element in Colorado. Since some Army officers want to play war in space, the Army formed a space battalion that grew that into the 1st Space Brigade in 2003. While the Army's 100th Missile Defense Brigade there makes sense, the Space Brigade has a vague mission to provide "space support" to everyone, which is already provided by the Air Force and other agencies. Any essential components can move into the 100th Brigade structure.

https://youtu.be/INpwgOGju5U

Biff , June 26, 2018 at 5:02 am GMT
I watched some of Ken Burns Vietnam documentary, and I was struck by how many times "Communist threat" was mentioned. It should be realized that "threat" and "security" are the first go-to bullshit terms out of the propaganda files. There is no threat, there are only "obstacles" in the way of domination. There are those who simply will never give up the attempt to dominate everything, including the moon, and the stars.

BTW, my Dad always thought I was going to be an astronaut – I took up space in college.

El Dato , June 26, 2018 at 6:25 am GMT
The rest will be hordes of new office buildings.

Well, maybe NASA can finally get some funding for the interplanetary NERVA they have been tinkering with for a long time. That would at least be of some conceivable use.

The United Launch Alliance , however, looks like a moaning white elephant of MIC glitterati. Maybe it could be edged away from the trough.

Greg Bacon , Website June 26, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT

"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."

That's rich, shedding crocodile tears over another massive influx of tax monies to the gluttonous Pentagon, while America's infrastructure goes to hell from lack of money.

That space is not to be weaponized, according to past treaties–which the USA signed–matters not to the self-proclaimed rulers of the world and now, outer space.

You can see their psyop articles all over the MSM, spreading fear about Russia and China building hyper-sonic missiles and killer satellites.
Reminds me of the late 1950′s and '60′s, when Americans were scare stiff about bomber and missile gaps, that could only be cured with a massive chunk of tax money.

You can go to this link and see the huge number of bombers the US built, some only to be dropped after spending billions on production.

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

And the same wasteful strategy will be used on this 'Jetsons' space force.

Anonymous [266] Disclaimer , June 26, 2018 at 10:20 am GMT
We've got the third-world flooding into out country both from the southern border and at major U.S. airports. And yet we spend billions to send troops to Norway & Poland to be vigilant about "protecting" the integrity of the borders of those countries. And we base our military in Syria and threaten war over foreign territories where we have no legal to even be. Now we need a space command. As our country becomes a third-world flophouse and our middle class is decaying at an exponential rate, we need a space command? For what? To protect the hollowed-out and third-world America??
Heros , June 26, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
Trump is clearly a Zionist crypto-jew and he never could have made it to the presidency without a kosher seal of approval anyway.

One reason the US MIC looks like such idiots all the time is because they clearly are not the ones really calling the shots. So often, especially in the middle east, Trump or some other Poobah will make some proclamation, and withing hours the military will be bombing or invading in direct contravention.

What is happening is the all these people are merely figure heads with little authority. Whenever the real powers bark their orders, the entire chain of command snaps into action. We see it happen between nations when Nato makes some decision like bombing Libya, and all of Nato steps in line. Or Russians sanctions. Or recently when most of Nato expelled Russian diplomats for a blatant chem warfare false flag.

These orders are coming straight out of Jerusalem. Even the highest level puppets like Trump, Macron, Merkel or May have no idea what the real agenda is, or what is coming next. This is why these pronouncements often seem so idiotic. What to jewish supremecists care if anyone of these political bufoons looks like an ass. It is the same reason they force macho movie stars and music idols to be seen dressed as women.

So for some reason ZOG wants attention brought to the weaponization of space. Knowing from Talpiot and wikileaks that they already have control over most US technology (Spectre), it seems clear to me that the Zionists want to maintain and increase their control of space, likely as part of some milestone on their path to building the third temple. Clearly Israel does not have the resources to accomplish this task of dominating space on her own, so once again the task falls on the #1 stooge, the JooSA. Trump is the perfect retard to announce the planned "space force", they used Obama for idiotic announcements on things like global warming.

Wally Streeter , June 26, 2018 at 10:27 am GMT
Maybe the real goal is to prevent smaller nations from launching satellites without US permission. Shooting down Iranian satellites would serve as an object lesson to other countries that it is pointless to develop satellite launch capabilities (and long range ballistic missiles) if Uncle Sam objects. Of course, this plan would completely contravene of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
Wally Streeter , June 26, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
A real war in space would create so much orbital debris that it could cause a cascade of destruction and threaten America's own assets up there. Unless they develop Star Trek style phasers that completely vaporize their targets, space war will be pretty much impractical.
Tom Welsh , June 26, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
"The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers".

And to kill everyone found living there.

RVBlake , June 26, 2018 at 12:17 pm GMT
So the same decorated Junkers infesting the Pentagon who have been floundering around in Afghanistan for 17 years now are salivating at the prospect of a public-funded boondoggle in outer space.
Duncan , June 26, 2018 at 12:36 pm GMT
I was going to comment, but anonymous266 already said pretty much everything I wanted to say.
This country is turning into a overused toilet, meanwhile we have a political, economic and cultural elite living in their own world happily insulated from the consequences of their actions.
nagra , June 26, 2018 at 12:36 pm GMT
Trump forgot to say that USA needs to buy and use Russian rocket engines to lift them up at all
( 'space forces' needs one general up there at leas t : )
WorkingClass , June 26, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
Trump's Space Force is not for domestic consumption. It's intended to worry the Russians and Chinese. It's possible Trump thinks he can win an arms race. If so he is a fool. More likely he is puffing himself up prior to negotiations.
Reactionary Utopian , June 26, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
@Ben Frank

When our satellites start failing mysteriously and signs point to Chinese technology doing it, we will all be glad that the President started this initiative. Better late than never.

Is that anything like the "signs" that the evil Rooskies hacked the DNC's state-of-the-fart computer systems? Yeah, can't wait until "the intelligence community" issues some sort of consensus document saying that those mysterious, sinister Chinamen done did in our satellites, and it's time to kick off another stupid war. Just can't wait. "Better late than never," indeed.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , June 26, 2018 at 5:43 pm GMT
https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagates-core-narrative-always-lacked-actual-evidence/
Wally Streeter , June 26, 2018 at 5:59 pm GMT
Maybe this is Trump's stab at fiscal policy. It reminds me of when Krugman suggested faking an alien invasion to stimulate the economy. If so, get ready for a false flag involving the International Space Station and a retaliatory cruise missile strike aimed at some empty craters on the moon.
Lincoln Blockface Squarebeard III , June 26, 2018 at 6:19 pm GMT

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.

Spot on. Trump's ravings about "dominating" space make me think the American exceptionalist crowd will never accept a United States that shares power with other strong nations like China and Russia. Will saner minds prevail and relegate the exceptionalists to the cellar (or the gallows if it gets really crazy) or will they hold on to power and decide a nuclear showdown is preferable to the United States joining the UK and Russia as a post-empire nation?

AnonFromTN , June 26, 2018 at 6:33 pm GMT
The US elites have lost their collective mind a while ago. This is yet another manifestation of their cluelessness, yet another step towards self-destruction. Unfortunately for us all, they will bring the country down with them. As Mr. Giraldi aptly ended his piece, stay tuned.
redmudhooch , June 26, 2018 at 9:12 pm GMT
This is why we can't have anything nice. Most Americans have less than $1000 to their name and live paycheck to paycheck, health care sucks and is unaffordable. Veterans homeless and suiciding themselves. Someones gotta pay for the MIC robbing America blind for 17 years now, it won't be the rich. 21 trillion in the hole now, probably far more than that in reality.
The MIC and foreign lobbies are out of control. These wars are not benefiting 90% of Americans, but we will be the ones to pay for it. They'll be droning people here in America before long. Count on it.

Congress May Declare the Forever War
A proposed law with bipartisan support would dramatically weaken the ability of legislators to extricate the United States from perpetual armed conflict.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/congress-may-declare-the-forever-war/562175/

... ... ...

Johnny Rico , June 26, 2018 at 9:43 pm GMT
@Heros

I'm curious. Is there nothing in this world that is not a problem? And a problem created by Jews? And then a conspiracy by Jews to cover up their involvement.

I realize this is UNZ and a piece by Philip Giraldi, but it is about a perceived ridiculousness of having a Space Force.

You were real quick on the trigger with this Jews thing.

So lemme get this straight. They control Hollywood AND the weather? Jesus. This is serious.

Manuel Arce , Website June 26, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
and the National Infrastructure Recovery and REcontruction Plan???? preparing America for the 21th century global commerce, educating the young for the LABOR demands of the future.???Rebuilding the INNercities? roads, bridges, airports, digital utilities, futuristic public transportation systems, smart cities??? Reforming and revamping the VA+private options?? merging the EDD/Labor dept?? Expanding the Pentagon nexus with SMALL businesses mom&pop vendors, unions apprenticeship programs and the armed forces (VA retraining) US military branches and and Charter tech/Vocational schools???
Jeff Stryker , June 27, 2018 at 1:52 am GMT
@nagra

Any country that believes the world would be all peace and harmony if not for the United States is an idiot.

Intelligent Dasein , Website June 27, 2018 at 2:41 am GMT
@Reactionary Utopian

Yeah, can't wait until "the intelligence community" issues some sort of consensus document saying that those mysterious, sinister Chinamen done did in our satellites, and it's time to kick off another stupid war.

China is not exactly a soft target. This isn't Iraq we're talking about, and Iraq was plenty bad enough.

A war with China would bring about the end of the US Imperium under any scenario.

denk , June 27, 2018 at 2:53 am GMT
Uncle sham [1]
the Russkies and chicoms are deploying deadly space weapons, we have to close this vast missile gap in space pronto.

typical murkkan circular logic
They started weaponising the space, when the other side deploy counter measures, uncle use that response to justify its provocation.

[1]
Trump is just the latest iteration of uncle sham.
murkkans still cant figure out potus is just a front manager for the deep state.

hehhehe

nagra , June 27, 2018 at 4:36 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

so much of peace and harmony
that's funniest comment I've seen for a while
where do you live, on Mars?
( :

Z-man , June 27, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

So lemme get this straight. They control Hollywood AND the weather? Jesus. This is serious.

LOL!

As much as I see a Jew behind every rock even I find your comments funny and true. However in Palestine 'they' are deliberately rerouting rivers to dry out the Palestinians, so they are controlling an aspect of weather there, just sayin' .

... ... ...

Che Guava , June 27, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
Another very good article, Dr. Giraldi.

A very stupid move by Trump, likely leading to the U.S.A. abrogating the treaty against the militarisation of space.

The U.S.A. Air Force already has the mysterious XB-37, I would guess that Russia and China have a better idea about its true intended role than anybody outside the U.S.A.F.

IIRC, XB is the designation for 'experimental bomber .'

I am not against much of what Trump was campaigning on, but he seems to have little interest in it.

As for uniforms, Starship Troopers is a much classier example than Star Trek, Verhoeven and his costume desgners seem to have a knack for prediction, look at the police outfits in Robocop, they are real now.

The largely Third-Reich-based designs in Troopers were stylish, so my vote is for that.

Not that the whole circus should go ahead at all.

ChuckOrloski , June 27, 2018 at 2:21 pm GMT
I respect how Heros wisely quoted William Casey:

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Hi Heros,

Revealing how the Zionist Casey freely used the term "our disinformation."

Given correct memory, I believe Casey was near having to sit for a Congressional investigation that needed his testimony on unAmerican activities, the Reagan administration's Iran-Contra transactions.

Just prior to the hearing, Casey was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and "departed."

... ... ...

Fran Macadam , June 27, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT
National security means making sure the investments of the oligarchy are secured by the nation. Gen. Smedley Butler had it right 80 years ago.
jimk329 , June 27, 2018 at 11:06 pm GMT
Excellent point. Trump is a distraction. He is nastier, but as shallow as Reagan. Mr. Reagan is the one who handed the two most vital organs of the US, the Pentagon and the State Department, to the Zionists, and America has been sinking ever since!
Bliss , June 28, 2018 at 3:38 am GMT
The Space Force may well turn out to be Trump's long term legacy.

It is needed for a very good reason: shooting at and breaking into smaller, safer pieces large objects that are about to fall dangerously to earth. Like satellites, space stations, ICBMs, asteroids .

seeing-thru , June 28, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT
When pies in the sky start going somewhat stale, it is time to turn people's eyes to pies in space.

Who cares about mundane things like roads, schools, airports, electricity and water infrastructures? Much of this earthly stuff will become obsolete as America launches itself into space.

The Chinese will of course gladly finance the enterprise by buying even more US treasuries, and the Russians will gladly supply the rocket engines to help the US achieve total dominance of space, the stars, the moon, the sun, angels if any actually dwell there, and perhaps God himself. If you want to achieve big, think big! The thousand year Reich set its goals much too low and mundane.

Whilst at it, why not also create an outer space command, a department for space security, and launch projects to bring freedom and democracy to all the galaxies out there? We got to tame them out there if we don't want them to attack us here, right? Just think of the new recruitment posters that will have all of American teenagers lining up to enrol in these departments. The whole of the US will get starry-eyed – or should it be galactical-eyed?

Scientists and the best of brains will flood into the US from Mexico, India, Russia, Africa to take part in the grand drive to create new realities. The economy will boom (as in BOOM?); even if it doesn't, who cares about this miserable little planet – it is but a dot in the galaxy.

Fools rush in where angels would fear to tread. And psychopaths see threats everywhere, even in space.

fitzGetty , June 28, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
this gripping, true, inside story of the STAR WARS Programme is highly recommemded:

DEATH RAYS AND DELUSIONS – Gerold Yonas

Svigor , June 29, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
@Bliss

It's mostly a satellite thing. Anti-satellite warfare, countermeasures against same, etc.

[Jul 11, 2018] Angry Bear " Bombing for Votes Public opinion shifts during the Iraq war and implications for future conflicts by Jeff Soplop

Jul 09, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
Politics US/Global Economics by Jeff Soplop

Bombing for Votes: Public opinion shifts during the Iraq war and implications for future conflicts

Despite the recent summit in Singapore, which mostly made for good television and little substance, North Korea appears to be quickly ignoring any promises -- whether implicit, explicit, or imagined -- made to President Trump to dismantle its nuclear program. In Iran, Trump's decision to withdraw from the six-party nuclear deal and the re-imposition of sanctions has created a possibility that Iran will resume pursuing a nuclear weapon of its own. The common thread between Iran and North Korea, of course, is the continued march of nuclear proliferation and, with it, an elevated chance of the US initiating armed conflict as a means to slow or stop such proliferation.

In this post, I'm not going to speculate how probable armed conflict with either Iran or North Korea might be (although I might take a shot at it in a future post). Instead, I'm interested in what the public reaction to such a conflict would be and how it would affect support for Trump, especially in the run up to an election.

To estimate public reaction, it's useful to consider how the public mood shifted throughout the course of the Iraq war. Even 15 years after it started, the Iraq war continues to be divisive. As shown in the chart below from Pew Research , when the Iraq invasion was first launched in March, 2003 a large majority of the country supported it as the "right decision." By early 2005, however, that support eroded and has remained relatively stable since then.

Similar to the start of the Iraq war, other research has shown a public "rally around the flag" effect at the outset of military action. One study , for example, looked at 41 US foreign policy crises and found the average effect was a boost of 1.4 percentage points to the president's approval rating. But, when the military action was large enough to merit front-page coverage by the New York Times, that effect jumped by another 8 percentage points, representing a significant lift for any president.

Considering these examples, a president with a low approval rating might be tempted to initiate an armed conflict in the run-up to an election as a way to shore up public support, at least temporarily. Given Trump's lack of scruples about any action that might in some way benefit him, such a scenario is within the realm of possibility for the 2018 midterm elections or the 2020 presidential election.

Research on the influence of major events on presidential approval ratings, however, shows that the public reaction to armed conflict cannot be taken for granted. A research paper recently published in Presidential Studies Quarterly looked at how approval ratings fluctuated over the course of George W. Bush's presidency and analyzed the causes of those fluctuations. The authors reasoned that Bush's presidency was ideal for studying presidential support because it was so eventful -- the September 11 th terrorist attacks happened during his first year in office, then Bush initiated large-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Great Recession started toward the end of his presidency.

To examine factors that influenced Bush's public support, they modeled his approval rating based on environmental variables (unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence, battle deaths), major event variables (9/11 attacks, Iraq invasion, market crash), and ordinary event variables (positive and negative news coverage of international and domestic events). The environmental variables were weighted based on Gallup's monthly Most Important Problem poll , which allows the model to consider the importance of these variables' salience in the public mindset. (For those who are interested, they used a Newey-West estimator to build the model to account for heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in the errors.)

After creating the model, they grouped the independent variables into three categories: economic, war, and terror. These categories allowed the authors to examine the impact of each on Bush's approval rating over the course of his presidency, shown in the chart below.

The results in the chart provide interesting insights that challenge some conventional wisdom. Economic status is often considered one of the most important factors in presidential approval but -- according to this study, at least -- for Bush, the economy was almost a non-factor until the very end of his presidency when the Great Recession started. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Bush's response to them, including bombing Afghanistan, provided an initially huge boost to his approval. But that jump faded almost entirely within a year. The beginning of the Iraq war, by contrast, provided only a very small, short-term boost to Bush's approval ratings, which quickly turned into a large negative that continued to weigh down his ratings for the remainder of his term. By examining the model variables, it's clear that troop casualty reports had a particularly significant negative impact within the war category.

Based on these results, the study's authors concluded that it is the salience of events that matters as much or more than the events themselves. When 9/11 happened, people wanted security and rewarded Bush for taking decisive action that made them feel safer. When the Iraq war started, the effects of war weariness kicked in fairly quickly and people wanted fewer causalities and peace. When the Great Recession began, people forgot about everything else and looked to their own economic prospects.

With those lessons in mind, initiating an armed conflict with Iran or North Korea would be a high-risk approach to boosting public support in the run-up to an election. Both countries have powerful militaries and any conflict could quickly lead to high casualty numbers. While no military action would be risk free, an engineered conflict with a target that could be attacked with minimal threat to US troops, such as Syria or Yemen, could induce a short-term rallying effect. As elections approach later this year and in 2020, keep your eyes on those and other "soft" targets to see if the president tries to bomb his way to his desired outcome.

  1. Joel , July 9, 2018 6:59 am

    I'm expecting some sort of Reichstag fire event.

Daniel Becker , July 9, 2018 4:58 pm

All true, though I speculate a draft would change things. Which is why we have an "all volunteer" military. Those that like the military and war learned well. Unfortunately, it makes for a defense force that no longer reflects the population which I do not think is good.

[Jul 11, 2018] Senator McConnell always conjures the image and mannerisms of Colonel Sanders (ala Kentucky Fried Chicken)

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Incitatus , June 30, 2018 at 8:17 pm GMT

@Sam Shama

Sam,

'Senator McConnell' always conjures the image and mannerisms of Colonel Sanders (ala Kentucky Fried Chicken). White planter suit, broad-brimmed hat, weak-chin goatee and unconvincing sales pitch.

Then again, beardless Mitch looks more like Toby Turtle, and what he delivers is rarely worth a bucket of greasy chicken.

[Jul 09, 2018] 'Pay Up You NATO Deadbeats or Else!' by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else? ..."
"... In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US. ..."
"... Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China! ..."
"... At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence. ..."
Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

`We are the schmucks' thundered President Donald Trump, using a favorite New York City Yiddish term for penis. The object of Trump's wrath at his Make America Great Again' rally in Great Falls, Montana was the craven, stingy European members of NATO, only 16 of 22 members are on budget for their US-commanded military spending. Trump wants them to spend much more.

Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else?

Equally bad, according to Trump, is that the US runs a whopping trade deficit with the European Union which is busy shipping high-end cars and fine wines to the US. The wicked foreigners don't buy enough Amerian bourbon, corn and terribly abused pigs.

Trump is quite right that America's NATO allies, particularly Germany and Canada, don't spend enough on defense. Germany is reported to have less than twenty operational tanks. Canada's armed forces appear to be smaller than the New York City police department.

But the Europeans ask, 'defense against whom?' The Soviet Union was a huge threat back in the Cold War when the mighty Red Army had 55,000 tanks pointed West. Today, Russia's land and navel power has evaporated. Russia has perhaps 5,500 main battle tanks in active service and a similar number in storage, a far cry from its armored juggernaut of the Cold War.

More important, Russia's military budget for 2018 was only $61 billion, actually down 17% from last year. That's 4.3% of GDP. Russia is facing hard economic times. Russia has slipped to third place in military spending after the US, China and Saudi Arabia. The US and its wealthy allies account for two thirds of world military spending. In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

In addition, Russia must defend a vast territory from the Baltic to the Pacific. The US is fortunate in having Mexico and Canada as neighbors. Russia has North Korea, China, India, the Mideast and NATO to watch. As with its naval forces, Russia's armies are too far apart to lend one another mutual support. Two vulnerable rail lines are Russia's main land link between European Russia and its Pacific Far East.

Trump's supplemental military budget boost this year of $54 billion is almost as large as Russia's entire 2018 military budget. As for Trump's claim that Europe is not paying its fair share of NATO expenses, note that that Britain and France combined together spend more on their military forces than Russia.

ORDER IT NOW

In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US.

Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China!

These essentials of war have been seriously neglected in favor of buying fancy weapons. But such weapons need spares, electronics, fuel depots, missiles and thousands of essential parts. As former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld observed, 'you go to war with what you have.' Neither side has enough. A war would likely peter out in days after supplies were exhausted. Besides, no side can afford to replace $100 million jet fighters or $5 million apiece tanks after a war, however brief.

President Trump has learned about war from Fox TV. Europeans have learned from real experience and don't want any more.


Robert Magill , July 7, 2018 at 11:42 pm GMT

The last time the US put troops into action in North Korea, China lashed out and drove us back South. In retaliation we dropped more tonnage of bombs and napalm on the North than was used in the entire Pacific War.

Why would anyone think the same thing cannot happen again? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/we-are-a-very-modern-and-enlightened-species-and-we-can-prove-it/

Giuseppe , July 8, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT

In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

Disband NATO already. The USSR is gone and Russia has no revanchist plans. Our military spending on the defense of Europe only frees their budgets for social programs like medical care and college education.

And what have we gotten for spending the nation's wealth on blowing up the Greater Middle East, killing a million plus civilians and displacing millions more? Rusting cities, crumbling infrastructure, a school system that can't compete with even that of India American Exceptionalism indeed. Exceptionally deluded.

Bill Pilgrim , July 9, 2018 at 6:37 am GMT
At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence.
Bill Pilgrim , July 9, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
Here's a former UK ambassador:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/no-need-for-nato/

[Jul 09, 2018] American Pravda Post-War France and Post-War Germany, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Unconditional Hatred ..."
"... Daily Telegraph ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

The author of Unconditional Hatred was Captain Russell Grenfell, a British naval officer who had served with distinction in the First World War, and later helped direct the Royal Navy Staff College, while publishing six highly-regarded books on naval strategy and serving as the Naval Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph . Grenfell recognized that great quantities of extreme propaganda almost inevitably accompany any major war, but with several years having passed since the close of hostilities, he was growing concerned that unless an antidote were soon widely applied, the lingering poison of such wartime exaggerations might threaten the future peace of Europe.

His considerable historical erudition and his reserved academic tone shine through in this fascinating volume, which focuses primarily upon the events of the two world wars, but often contains digressions into the Napoleonic conflicts or even earlier ones. One of the intriguing aspects of his discussion is that much of the anti-German propaganda he seeks to debunk would today be considered so absurd and ridiculous it has been almost entirely forgotten, while much of the extremely hostile picture we currently have of Hitler's Germany receives almost no mention whatsoever, possibly because it had not yet been established or was then still considered too outlandish for anyone to take seriously. Among other matters, he reports with considerable disapproval that leading British newspapers had carried headlined articles about the horrific tortures that were being inflicted upon German prisoners at war crimes trials in order to coerce all sorts of dubious confessions out of them.

Some of Grenfell's casual claims do raise doubts about various aspects of our conventional picture of German occupation policies. He notes numerous stories in the British press of former French "slave-laborers" who later organized friendly post-war reunions with their erstwhile German employers. He also states that in 1940 those same British papers had reported the absolutely exemplary behavior of German soldiers toward French civilians, though after terroristic attacks by Communist underground forces provoked reprisals, relations often grew much worse.

Most importantly, he points out that the huge Allied strategic bombing campaign against French cities and industry had killed huge numbers of civilians, probably far more than had ever died at German hands, and thereby provoked a great deal of hatred as an inevitable consequence. At Normandy he and other British officers had been warned to remain very cautious among any French civilians they encountered for fear they might be subject to deadly attacks.

Although Grenfell's content and tone strike me as exceptionally even-handed and objective, others surely viewed his text in a very different light. The Devin-Adair jacket-flap notes that no British publisher was willing to accept the manuscript, and when the book appeared no major American reviewer recognized its existence. Even more ominously, Grenfell is described as having been hard at work on a sequel when he suddenly died in 1954 of unknown causes, and his lengthy obituary in the London Times gives his age as 62. With the copyright having long lapsed, I am pleased to include this important volume in my collection of HTML Books so that those interested can easily read it and decide for themselves.

... ... ...

Assuming these numbers are even remotely correct, the implications are quite remarkable. The toll of the human catastrophe experienced in post-war Germany would certainly rank among the greatest in modern peacetime history, far exceeding the deaths that occurred during the Ukrainian Famine of the early 1930s and possibly even approaching the wholly unintentional losses during Mao's Great Leap Forward of 1959-61. Furthermore, the post-war German losses would vastly outrank either of these other unfortunate events in percentage terms and this would remain true even if the Bacque's estimates are considerably reduced. Yet I doubt if even a small fraction of one percent of Americans are today aware of this enormous human calamity. Presumably memories are much stronger in Germany itself, but given the growing legal crackdown on discordant views in that unfortunate country, I suspect that anyone who discusses the topic too energetically risks immediate imprisonment.

To a considerable extent, this historical ignorance has been heavily fostered by our governments, often using underhanded or even nefarious means. Just like in the old decaying USSR, much of the current political legitimacy of today's American government and its various European vassal-states is founded upon a particular narrative history of World War II, and challenging that narrative might produce dire political consequences. Bacque credibly relates some of the apparent efforts to dissuade any major newspaper or magazine from running articles discussing the startling findings of his first book, thereby imposing a "blackout" aimed at absolutely minimizing any media coverage. Such measures seem to have been quite effective, since until eight or nine years ago, I'm not sure I had ever heard a word of these shocking ideas, and I have certainly never seen them seriously discussed in any of the numerous newspapers or magazines that I have carefully read over the last three decades.

Even illegal means were employed to hinder the efforts of this solitary, determined scholar. At times, Bacque's phone-lines were tapped, his mail intercepted, and his research materials surreptitiously copied, while his access to some official archives was blocked. Some of the elderly eyewitnesses who personally corroborated his analysis received threatening notes and had their property vandalized.

Related Reading:

Unconditional Hatred by Captain Russell Grenfell France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947 by Sisley Huddleston The High Cost of Vengeance by Freda Utley Gruesome Harvest by Ralph Franklin Keeling The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving Our American Pravda

[Jul 09, 2018] MH17 and Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which was established to oversee and investigate complaints from victims of wars and armed conflict in relation to crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other like offences as recognized under International Law.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ALCvA , July 9, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT

I don't know what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 nor do I know what happed to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 on 8 March 2014. Except that my suspicion is aroused that there is a connection with these events and the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which was established to oversee and investigate complaints from victims of wars and armed conflict in relation to crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other like offences as recognized under International Law.

In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.

In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counsellors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture. The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

In November 2013, the tribunal convicted State of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people and convicted former Israeli general Amos Yaron for crimes against humanity and genocide for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Thus, my conspiratorial mind suspects that there is a connection between the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal's convictions and the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 and Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.

The problem is that the convictions by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunals are little known and were never reported by the mainstream media.

Kees van der Pijl , Website July 9, 2018 at 6:35 am GMT
@ALCvA

I also have this in the book, with the same details, and after a discussion that also includes Malaysia's arms purchases in Russia, I write 'But we should be reminded that we are looking at a 'systems event', a conditional structure of great complexity, in which even factors that are highly unlikely to have been the cause (such as punishing Malaysia or killing Putin) may yet have played a role, at some point, in overcoming moral or other barriers.'

jilles dykstra , July 9, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT
" However, irrespective of the actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum. "

The key sentence.
Dutch vice first minister Asscher at the time of the disaster was on vacation in the south of France.
This fool, in a Dutch tv show, explained the need for secrecy, in the afternoon of the day of the MH17 disaster prime minister Rutte called Asscher on his mobile, and asked him to call back on a land line 'so that the Russians could not listen in'.
Until now no Dutch people's representative dared to ask Rutte what was so secret then that the Russians had tobe prevented from listening in.
The only thing I can think of is that Rutte told Asscher 'we want the Russians to get the blame'.

It is interesting to see how the MH17 propaganda follows the example of the holocaust propaganda.
Monuments, remembrances, accusations, but never any concrete facts.
One might also say 'follows the Sept 11 propaganda'.
As a USA politician said 'MH17 is the Dutch Sept 11′.

I did not read the article carefully, so I do not know if it mentions that suspect Ukraine is part of the investigation organisation, or that Ukraine spied on the investigation.

But the essential question remains, except for an accident, why would Russia shoot down a passenger plane ?
Putin is not stupid, he does not do things that just harm him.

jilles dykstra , July 9, 2018 at 6:51 am GMT
@ALCvA

In a Dutch talkshow the chairman of the Dutch airline pilots organisation Benno Baksteen mentioned casually that aboard MH370 there were two groups of Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible for radar.
Nowhere in the media this was picked up, Benno Baksteen never again was on tv, and, as far as I know, he's no longer chairman.
My theory on MH17: control of the plane was taken from the crew from outside, this is possible since early 2001.
It was directed direction Antarctica, until is crashed, lack of fuel.
The second pilot tried to use his mobile phone to make contact, however, this is not possible, a passenger plane flies simply to fast, there was a connection, but before he could say anything the plane was too far away.
Also one of the Sept 11 problems.
So, following the old question 'who benefitted', it is clear for me who the suspect is.

Wizard of Oz , July 9, 2018 at 9:04 am GMT
@anon

Indeed, after noting the Marxistish approach I wondered how reliable he would be on key facts if tested. It wasn't encouraging to find him writing that the Dutch Safety Board's report could be "conveniently [sic] dismissed". As the critical account of a presentation by him that I shall post below notes he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Dutch Safety Board's technical investigation and report and the Joint Investigation Team's work on the criminal aspects of the case. That is pretty elementary and leaves him looking like someone who could only wave his hands when it is pointed out that the DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named.

He seems to be a retired professor keen to be noticed so his air fares will be paid and his book with a title which also mentions MH17 will sell.

Anyway here is a useful critique slightly truncated from

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/

showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

What happened to flight MH17?

Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Posted on September 23, 2017 by admin in Uncategorized // 4 Comments

jilles dykstra , July 9, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

" DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named. "
A weird compelling case.
They say they know who did it, a Russian officer, name and photograph have been publicised here, but they've been unable to ask him why he did it.
Any normal criminal investigation begins with motive, here at the end the motive still is lacking.
I am not in the least convinced.
The motive, except when it was an accident, lies in the west, the Netherlands objected most to sanctions.
About a possible accident, Ukraine seems to have misused overflying passenger planes as shield for its bombers.
But, the Ukrainian pilot said to have shot down MH17 committed suicide.
If he did it, he did what a fighter pilot on a illegal mission would have done, target the cockpit from behind, no possibility of an emergency signal.
If it was a BUK, it did what a fighter pilot would have done.
But a BUk flies vertical at a speed of 4500 kmh, a passenger plane at some 900.
Why did not the BUK hit from beneath ?
All in all, indeed a very compelling case, as the murder of Kennedy, Sept 11, Diana, etc

Tom Welsh , July 9, 2018 at 11:55 am GMT
"In February 2016 that assertion had still been dismissed as unfit for evidence by the Dutch chief prosecutor on the JIT, Fred Westerbeke, in a letter to victims' relatives. How can it possibly have become the core component of the case for the prosecution two years and two months later?"

That is extremely puzzling – indeed, inexplicable – if you believe that the object of the exercise is to determine the truth and to see justice done. But it isn't.

As long ago as Plato's "Politeia" ("Republic"), a widely-held view was that "justice is the will of the stronger", as Thrasybulos argues in that dialogue. As far as I can see, that is still the most popular view, and it is certainly the one supported by Western governments. (The Skripal affair is another prominent case in point: the UK government declared who was guilty without the tedious formalities of investigation, indictment, and trial).

The real object of the Western elites – as embodied in the statements of their servants in government and the media – is to control public opinion. In this endeavour, precise accuracy, consistency and objective truth are not only unnecessary hindrances – they are positive handicaps. The purpose is to imprint on the dim public consciousness some desired certainties, such as that Russia is aggressive and barbarous, that Mr Putin is a wicked soulless murderer, and so on.

That is not done by proving a case to courtroom standards. It is done by loudly repeating memorable and emotional slogans, over and over, until everyone vaguely internalizes them and anyone who dares to disagree is attacked for disloyalty.

Hence the change in value of the Bellingcat assertions referred to by the quoted passage is not only unsurprising – it is exactly what we should expect. Yesterday's completely unproven allegation is today's generally known fact.

FB , July 9, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT
Wow what a tremendous article from a bona fide scholar

I have not yet seen anywhere such an accurate and succinct overview of the geopolitical history of the post-1991 era anywhere

There is something that is not clear though the author mentions a 'land for gas' deal discussed by Putin and Merkel on the sidelines of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil

' Its tentative provisions included normalising the status of Crimea in exchange for a massive economic rehabilitation plan and a gas price rebate for Ukraine '

I have no idea what this actually means an 'economic rehabilitation plan for whom ? and what does 'normalization' of Crimea's status mean recognition of Crimea's rejoining the Russian Federation ?

I look forward to reading the author's book

[Jul 09, 2018] Some feelings toward Wall Street

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rurik , September 9, 2015 at 12:09 am GMT

@Jim

"More than 1/2 of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means."

Utter nonsense.

Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank and can hit some keys on their computer and create a few trillion Federal Reserve notes just like *that* .

They've been injecting hundreds of billion$ into Jewish dominated Wall Street for decades if not longer. Especially since the 2008 mass-looting of the American tax-slave. The big banks like Goldman Sachs and Chase are all dominated by Jews, just like the Treasury. The cash flows to other well connected Jews and gentiles, but Jews are MASSSIVELY over-represented as the recipients of the swindled lucre.

It was rabbi Dov Zakheim who was the comptroller of the Pentagon when over two trillion went missing. Do you suppose that cash ended up in the coffers of Presbyterian churches or injected into the economy of Appalachia?

When some yeshiva decides they need a few tens of thousands or more for 'security'. especially following 911, where 'lucky' Larry Silverstein collected his billions, they go to the Treasury.

Madoff, Scott Rothstein. others.. are just the tip of the iceberg.

But the big one is the Federal Reserve Bank where they and they alone have their own counterfeiting machine, and one thing you can say about Jews, is that they look after their own.

There are very many hard working and intelligent Jews who earn their money, and they deserve our admiration. But there is also a lot of graft and fraud and downright treason to the success of many of them. The scum at Goldman Sachs and guys like Jon Corzine high on the list.

tbraton , September 9, 2015 at 1:35 am GMT
@Rurik

"The scum at Goldman Sachs and guys like Jon Corzine high on the list."

I would not argue over your point that Jon Corzine is scum, but I would argue with your insinuation that he is Jewish (otherwise why mention him in a paragraph dealing with Jews). He's not. He's Protestant.

[Jul 09, 2018] July 4th and What It Really Means for Us by Boyd D. Cathey

Later "eqality of means" was replaced by "equality of opportunity". Still huge discrepancy in wealth typical for neoliberalism is socially destructive. And election of Trump was partially a reaction on neoliberalism dominance for the last 40 ears.
"... The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality." ..."
"... by our own maximum possibilities and potential ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality." ..."
"... by our own maximum possibilities and potential ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

For many Americans the Declaration of Independence is a fundamental text that tells the world who we are as a people. It is a distillation of American belief and purpose. Pundits and commentators, left and right, never cease reminding us that America is a new nation, "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Almost as important as a symbol of American belief is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It is not incorrect to see a link between these two documents, as Lincoln intentionally placed his short peroration in the context of a particular reading of the Declaration.

Lincoln bases his concept of the creation of the American nation in philosophical principles he sees enunciated in 1776, and in particular on an emphasis on the idea of "equality." The problem is that this interpretation, which forms the philosophical base of both the dominant "movement conservatism" today -- neoconservatism -- and the neo-Marxist multicultural Left, is basically false.

... ... ...

Although those authors employed the phrase "all men are created equal," and certainly that is why Lincoln made direct reference to it, a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic -- and equal -- rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government, and it was to parliament that the Declaration was primarily directed.

The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality."

Rather, from a traditionally-Christian viewpoint, each of us is born into this world with different levels of intelligence, in different areas of expertise; physically, some are stronger or heavier, others are slight and smaller; some learn foreign languages and write beautiful prose; others become fantastic athletes or scientists. Social customs and traditions, property holding, and individual initiative -- each of these factors further discriminate as we continue in life.

None of this means that we are any less or more valued in the judgment of God, Who judges us based on our own, very unique capabilities. God measures us by ourselves, by our own maximum possibilities and potential , not by those of anyone else -- that is, whether we use our own, individual talents to the very fullest (recall the Parable of the Talents in the Gospel of St. Matthew).

... ... ...


Echoes of History , July 6, 2018 at 5:52 am GMT

"All men are created equal" is a simply a rhetorical argument against the "divine right of kings" used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a "fasces" to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no standing army.

Which is why there are fascist symbols throughout the US government, including in the US Senate. Watch CSPAN if you don't believe me. See those fasces?

And do study what the Founders said more. Like the author of the term "all men are created equal." He wrote in the same document:

" the merciless Indian Savages " -- Declaration of Independence

Does that sound like he thought whites and Indians were equal? Nope.

He also wrote:

"Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography)

Does that sound like he thought blacks and whites were equal? Nope.

So stop spouting false Leftist propaganda about what the term "all men are created equal" means. All it does is make you sound extremely uninformed.

Echoes of History , July 6, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Dr. Doom

Yes, there is still an America, living and breathing, somewhat piled-on by Fake Americans at the moment. Don't give up on the Comeback Kid . You do not want to be as bitter and wrong as the defeatist Never Trumper" Cuckservatives. The Fake Americans will have to go back. Just like the Fake Europeans are already going back. Viktor Orban called Italy's decision to turn away rescue ship a "great moment." And the pendulum is just beginning to swing. The trend is your friend. Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

Wizard of Oz , July 6, 2018 at 8:16 am GMT
@Dan Hayes

Thank you for mentioning Jaffa. I had to look him up. Only Wikipedia so far but I found something of interest that you might like to comment on. Mention is made of Lincoln rejecting the Douglas arguments for states's rights on the ground that (majoritarian) democracy should not be allowed to enslave anyone. Is it possible to say that America's original sin of slavery ensured that there was an insoluble problem left behind by the original constitution makers plus the extension of the franchise to all adult white males?

Anon [294] Disclaimer , July 6, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
"..a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic -- and equal -- rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government,.."

Thank you Mr Cathey. As a non American, I was always puzzled by the obvious falsehood of the statement "all men created equal" -- particularly in a nation that still legalized slavery -- and how it could still be repeated ad nauseaum. Interesting, how one victorious man and one victorious teaching can have such profound consequences for the way people live and think generations later.

'All men are created equal' is almost the opposite of that other common mistake, 'no pity for the weak'. Yet both lead to oppressive regimes. A true anthropology will lead to different healthy political systems. A twisted one, always to repressive institutions.

Crawfurdmuir , Next New Comment July 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm GMT

@Echoes of History

"All men are created equal" is a simply a rhetorical argument against the "divine right of kings" used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a "fasces" to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no standing army.

My take is a little different, but not incompatible with yours.

The Declaration's assertion is "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "

So, to begin with, this is not a claim that all men are created equal in ability or character. The Founders recognized that they were not, and that ordinary social and economic inequalities, due to innate differences in ability or character, were natural, normal, and inevitable. The Declaration is first and foremost a legal document. It claims equality of rights – a legal claim, not a sociological, anthropological, or psychological one. Moreover, the rights are unalienable – that is, they cannot be alienated – sold, bartered, or given away – because someone entitled to them shall have moved from old England to the New World.

The grievance of the colonists was that taxes – the stamp tax, the tea tax, etc. – had been imposed upon them by the parliament at Westminster, an assembly in which they were not represented. Hence the slogan, "no taxation without representation." It was a principle based in the main non-religious issue of the English civil war (1642-1649). Charles I had attempted to levy "ship money" by royal prerogative, without the consent of Parliament. Unlike previous levies, which had been confined to coastal towns and were raised only in time of war, he did so in peacetime and extended the tax to inland areas. This provoked strong resistance; some local officials refused assistance to collection of the tax. The Petition of Right, written by Sir Edward Coke, complained:

Your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.

Extra-parliamentary taxation was effectively ended by the Long Parliament of 1640. After the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689, it was formally prohibited by the English Bill of Rights.

All of this history was much more familiar to the Founders in 1776 than it is to Americans today. The point of the claim that "all men are created equal" was simply to argue that Englishmen, under English law, were equally entitled to representation in any assembly that levied taxes on them, whether they were resident in England or in its colonies.

The argument for levying taxes on the colonies was that they were needed to pay for the defense of the colonies during what we call the French and Indian War, which was in fact just the North American theatre of what in Europe is known as the Seven Years' War. That they may have been needed for this purpose was not in dispute. Englishmen in England were taxed to pay for the Seven Years' War, but they were represented in the Parliament that levied the tax. Americans were not. From their point of view the taxes levied on them were as objectionable as ship money had been to the people of England in the time of Charles I.

The Declaration is therefore a sort of American version of the Petition of Right. Jefferson was an admirer of Coke and undoubtedly saw the parallel. His high-flown language about equality was meant to make the case against George III on behalf of English subjects in North America in the same way that Coke's Petition of Right made the case against Charles I on behalf of English subjects in England. The colonists' objection was that English subjects, wheresoever domiciled within English jurisdiction, should have equal rights under English law.

Jefferson never intended to proclaim the equality of negro slaves or "Indian savages" with free whites. Jefferson's observations in his Notes on the State of Virginia make quite clear that he did not believe them to be equals with whites in ability or character. The Indians he regards as primitives, having some admirable and some frightful qualities, but above all, as formidable enemies. He despairs of the intelligence of blacks; he faults black slavery because it brings out lamentable tendencies of laziness and petty tyranny among whites. These remarks are striking for their candor and have the ring of truth even today.

Russ , Next New Comment July 6, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
I appreciate Mr. Cathey's work here. On Tuesday the 3rd, one of the many overemployed sycophants in the executive ranks of the corporation which employs me deemed it necessary to bulk-email all of us peons with the message of how vital diversity and inclusion are to proper celebration of the 4th. Right -- because reserving mid-January through February for the blacks, March for women or Hispanics (I forget which), and June for the tutti-fruttis isn't nearly enough

[Jul 09, 2018] My own observation is that most of the projected U.S./Russian and U.S./Chinese confrontations would involve very extended lines of communication in the case of U.S. forces.

Notable quotes:
"... On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs. ..."
"... An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , July 5, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs.

An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else.

[Jul 09, 2018] Another bait and switch ?

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , July 3, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT

Here's an interesting tidbit about AOC:

Newly popular Democratic politician hero and nominee for a seat in the U.S. Congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used to have these words on her website:

A Peace Economy

"Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops home and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and occupation throughout the world."

Now they're gone. Asked about it on Twitter, she replied:

"Hey! Looking into this. Nothing malicious! Site is supporter-run so things happen -- we'll get to the bottom of it."

https://alethonews.com/2018/06/30/why-it-matters-that-peace-is-gone-from-ocasio-cortez-website/

It'll be interesting to see if these words ever reappear. I'll keep you posted if and when that happens.

ISmellBagels , July 3, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez will/can maintain her position on Israeli crimes. Public figures have a long history of backpedaling after getting the riot act read to them from the hebrew masters.
Carroll Price , July 6, 2018 at 6:09 pm GMT
@ISmellBagels

Like all other honest inexperienced upstarts, she'll spend the rest of her political life on her knees. begging forgiveness.

[Jul 09, 2018] WPOP fielded by the Unv of Maryland might be preferable to the polls like Pew

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , July 3, 2018 at 10:18 pm GMT

@FKA Max

If people want to use polls I suggest they use the gold standard WPOP fielded by the Unv of Maryland instead of polls like Pew which are funded by the Pew Charitable Trust , which is basically a 'Think Tank" that then presents its polls to congress trying to affect political decisions on issues. People need to be wary of what is an 'opinion maker' instead of just an opinion taker.

Here is a more detailed accurate picture ..bear in mind also that evans are only 10% of the population and other factors like party affiliation affect their views. One also has to wonder "IF" the evans as well as the other public were exposed to the real story on Israel and not the slanted version of the US med how that would affect the numbers.

http://worldpublicopinion.net/what-americans-especially-evangelicals-think-about-israel-and-the-middle-east/

What Americans (especially Evangelicals) think about Israel and the Middle East
Evangicals, International Action, Israel, Middle East / North Africa, Views on Countries/Regions December 4, 2015,

A new poll shows that in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall, an overwhelming 77% of Evangelical Republicans want the United States to lean toward Israel as compared to 29% to Americans overall and 36% of non-Evangelical Republicans.

In contrast 66% of all Americans and 60% of Non-Evangelical Republicans want the United States to lean toward neither side .

This pattern holds on other aspects of US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If the UN Security Council considers endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state, only 26% of all Americans and 38% of non-Evangelical Republicans favor the US voting against it. However six in ten Evangelical Republicans say that the US should vote against it, thus vetoing the move.

Evangelical Republicans also differ in that they pay far more attention to a candidate's position on Israel. When considering which candidate to vote for in Congress or for president just 26% of all Americans and 33% of non-Evangelical Republicans say they consider the candidates position on Israel a lot. Among Evangelical Republicans 64% say they consider it a lot.
Views of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also vary dramatically. Among the general public just 32 percent have a favorable view of Netanyahu, as do 47 percent of non-Evangelical Republicans. Favorable views rise to 66% among Evangelicals.
When asked, in an open-ended question, to name a national leader they most admire 22 percent of Republican Evangelicals chose Netanyahu, far more than any other leader.
Among Non-Evangelical Republicans 9 percent named Netanyahu and 6 percent for the public as a whole.
Evangelical Republicans represent 23% of all Republicans and 10% of the general population.
"There are of course partisan differences on Middle East policy in American public attitudes, but what's most striking is that much of the differences between Republicans and the national total disappears once one sets aside Evangelical Republicans, who constitute 10% of all Americans " said Shibley Telhami, the poll's principal investigator. "The Israel issue in American politics is seen to have become principally a Republican issue, but in fact, our results show, it's principally the issue of Evangelical Republicans."

One possible explanation for Evangelical Republicans' attitudes is their religious views. Sixty-six percent of Evangelical Republicans say that for the rapture or Second Coming to occur it is essential for current-day Israel to include all the land they believe was promised to Biblical Israel in the Old Testament, with 35% holding this view strongly.
The poll was sponsored by the Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland, and conducted in cooperation with the University's Program for Public Consultation, and released at the Brookings Institution. It was fielded by Nielsen Scarborough November 4-11, 2015, among a nationally representative sample of online panelists of 875, plus an oversample of Evangelicals/Born-Again Christians of 863. The margin of error is 3-4%.
Other Select Findings:
Overall, twice as many Americans say the Israeli government has too much influence (37%) than say too little influence (18%), while a plurality (44%) say it's the right level. Among Democrats, about half (49%) say Israel has too much influence, compared with 14% who say Israel has too little influence, and 36% who say it's the right level; Among Republicans, slightly more people say that Israel has too much influence (25%) than say it has too little influence (22%) with a slight majority (52%) saying it's the right level. The percentage of people who think that Israel has too little influence increases with age: 8% of 18-24 year olds feel this way in contrast to 17% of 25-44 year olds, 20% of 45-64 year olds, and 22% of those who are 65 years of age and older.
Given five options to explain the escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence the largest number–31%–attributes it to the absence of serious peace diplomacy, while 26% blame continued Israeli occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the same number blame Palestinian extremists. Only 6% each blame Israeli extremists and Palestinian authority ineffectiveness
Concerns about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are driven more by considerations related to human right and international law than US interests. Offered five options to explain their concern, the largest number -- 47%– say human rights or international law, while 32% say America's interest. Thirteen percent say cite religious beliefs, while 8% express concern for Israel's interests .

Overall, 37% of Americans (and 49% of Democrats) recommend punitive measures against Israel over its settlement policy (27% recommend economic sanctions, and 10% recommend taking more serious action); 31% recommend that the U.S. limits its opposition to words, 27% recommend that the U.S. do nothing.
American views of Muslims are strikingly partisan. While 67% of Democrats express favorable views of Muslims, only 41% of Republicans do.
73% of Evangelicals say that world events will turn against Israel the closer we get to the rapture or end and 78% say that the unfolding violence across the Middle East is a sign that the end times are nearer.

renfro , July 3, 2018 at 10:24 pm GMT
@renfro

A look at what the public says Trump should do.


When asked whether Trump should lean toward Israel toward Israel or Palestine or Neither

http://worldpublicopinion.net/palestine-and-israel-in-the-shadow-of-the-election-what-do-americans-want-obama-and-trump-to-do/

Favor Israel

Repubs – 56%
Dems – 17%
Independents – 29%

Favor Neither Israel or Palestine

Repubs – 42%
Dems -69%
Independents- 66%

[Jul 09, 2018] Israel supported Al Qaeda in Syria: Former Mossad Chief

Notable quotes:
"... that Israel provided "tactical" assistance to Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, throughout the Syrian civil war. ..."
"... The fact that Halevy chose the Qatari government-funded Al Jazeera to make his revelation is even more noteworthy considering the fact that Qatar is also a major financial supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

redmudhooch , July 5, 2018 at 9:14 pm GMT

Israel: Our # 1 ally! Don't forget that! No matter how many American goyim they murder! No matter how many billions they leech out of us while we can't even afford health care or decent education for goyim chilluns! Number 1!

Israel supported Al Qaeda in Syria: Former Mossad Chief

https://www.timesheadline.com/world/israel-supported-al-qaeda-syria-former-mossad-chief-7229.html

Special Report. In an interview with the Qatar-based news network Al Jazeera, Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad confirmed what many in the Middle East and around the world already surmised: that Israel provided "tactical" assistance to Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, throughout the Syrian civil war.

The fact that Halevy chose the Qatari government-funded Al Jazeera to make his revelation is even more noteworthy considering the fact that Qatar is also a major financial supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria.

Reports from UN observers in the Golan Heights confirmed regular contact between Israel Defense Force officers and armed Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State terrorists at the Syrian-Israeli border.

... ... ...

Halevy said it was "humane" for Israel to provide medical assistance to wounded Syrian terrorists but that such "humaneness" would never be extended to Shi'a Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon who have been fighting against the Sunni jihadist terrorists in Syria. Israel's "humaneness" was also shown for all the world to see in Gaza, where it murdered hundreds of children, old men, and women in incessant bombing attacks on highly populated areas.

annamaria , July 6, 2018 at 3:21 pm GMT
@Momus

"Jewish IDF medics are treating and saving the lives of Syrian civilians "
Are you serious? There are documented instances of Israeli saving the lives of ISIS -- the anti-civilian power unleashed by the US/Israel machinations in the Middle East. This has been accepted even by the US brass. http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/2016/12/heres-us-israel-al-qaeda-isis-work-together-syria/
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, on a border with Russia, the Kagans/Banderites putsch in Kiev have produced the results that should be of interest for the 52 main Jewish organizations in the US as well as for sanctimonious Israel that continues extracting reparations for the WWII-related "special" Jewish sufferings: https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/07/ukraine-abducts-journalists-to-exchange-for-terrorists/
"On July 5th, Kiev announced that it is willing to expand the list of prisoners that Ukraine is ready to exchange for Ukrainians being held in Russia. Among those intended for exchange is the coordinator of the Volunteers of Victory movement, Elena Yurevich (Odnovol), arrested for organizing a Victory Day celebration outlawed by Ukrainian authorities. "

[Jul 09, 2018] Heated Debate: Kevork Almassian vs. FSA opposition representatives

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

@SolontoCroesus

"TTG", one of SST's trusted writers, posted this report that you didn't read in NYTimes or hear on C Span:
Carrots and Sticks in Syria - TTG 03 Jul 2018
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/carrots-and-sticks-in-syria-ttg.html

. . . possible diplomatic breakthrough in southwest Syria. The core of this breakthrough was and remains an intense effort to speed peace negotiations between Damascus and various opposing forces in Syria. It was key to the SAA's recent successes in reducing the eastern Ghouta, Homs and even the Yarmouk refugee camp pockets. The same methodology has enabled the rapid recent success in Daraa. This effort is spearheaded by the Russian Reconciliation Center based at Khmeimim Air Base in Latakia. In addition to pushing peace deals, it coordinates relief aid to newly reconciled areas.

This carrot of reconciliation would not be effective without the stout stick which the SAA has become. We are all familiar with the formidable Tiger Force and the growing list of their combat successes. That success is being reinforced and replicated throughout the SAA by the Russians. Units are being reorganized and re-equipped along the Russian Army model without destroying what the Syrians themselves built over years of painful combat experience. Units raised independently of the SAA, including those trained and advised by the IRGC and Iranian Green Berets, will be folded into the SAA. This is also happening with some former rebels who have reconciled with Damascus. We could learn something from this experience given how we screwed the pooch with the Iraqi and Afghani armies. . . .

there's more at SST
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/carrots-and-sticks-in-syria-ttg.html

Three days ago, Pat Lang passed along reports from Haaretz and Almasdar that "Israel accepts Syrian control up to the UNDOF Line"

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/httpswwwalmasdarnewscomarticleisrael-wants-only-syrian-pro-govt-forces-near-border-haaretz.html

but you probably heard that from Jake Tapper. Or Sean Hannity.

RobinG , July 5, 2018 at 12:21 am GMT

Speaking of Syria:

Osama Abo Zayd , Former Spokesman of the Free Syrian Army former Syrian opposition chief negotiator at the Astana talks.
Kevork Almassian , founder of SyrianaAnalysis and Syrian Analyst.
Danny Makki , a freelance journalist and commentator on the Syria conflict, specialising in Syria's relations with Russia and Iran.
Yahya al-Aridi , Spokesman for the Syrian Negotiation Commission.

Heated Debate: Kevork Almassian vs. FSA & opposition representatives

[Jul 09, 2018] The crisis of neoliberalism morphed into deep crisis of the US society

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

The fact that the US is facing a profound crisis, possibly the worst one in its history, is accepted by most observers, except maybe the most delusional ones. Most Americans definitely know that. In fact, if there is one thing upon which both those who supported Trump and those who hate him with a passion can agree on, it would be that his election is a clear proof of a profound crisis (I would argue that the election of Obama before also had, as one of its main causes, the very same systemic crisis). When speaking of this crisis, most people will mention the deindustrialization, the drop in real income, the lack of well-paid jobs, healthcare, crime, immigration, pollution, education, and a myriad of other contributing factors. But of all the aspects of the "American dream", the single most resilient one has been the myth of the US military as "the finest fighting force in history".

anonymous [270] Disclaimer , July 5, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT

For Americans warfare is killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above, while making a ton of money in the process.

This is why I don't think there'll be any head-on clash between the US and Russia. It would violate the above principle. American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself. It's a form of banditry, roving the world in search of the next victim. Parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America are all weak and subject to US whims. That there's a huge mythology attached to US military prowess is just part of the brainwashing that goes on. It's been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries. There's always the risk of miscalculation of course but US politics is mostly show biz so it's hard to assess what part of it's warhawk talk is real and what's showboating.

[Jul 09, 2018] anarchyst

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: July 3, 2018 at 11:23 pm GMT 500 Words John McCain was a traitor and collaborator, while being held captive. He was given preferential treatment, due to the fact that his captors felt he was 'royalty', due to his family 'connections'.
His "shoot down" was self-induced, as he DISOBEYED ORDERS and flew well below the 'floor', getting himself shot down. There were several other jets on that particular mission and HE was the only one shot down, because the others obeyed their orders!
His ENTIRE life has been one of disrespect of orders and authority, believing himself bullet-proof, due to his 'family name' and his dad and grand dad being HIGH ranking Navy Admirals!
His 'nickname' in his HS yearbook was "Punk" and he displayed that behavior as he went on to the USNA, where he robbed someone, more deserving, of a slot in his class, due to the 'influence' of his father.
He SHOULD have been expelled, several times, but the folks at USNA did not want to go up against dad. He graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM in his class . . but STILL ended up going to Pensacola for flight training!! His classmates who actually 'made the grade' were aghast when he showed up down there.
His flight grades were well below acceptable and he should have been run out of there too . . he was an ABYSMAL aviator . . crashing on base leg at Corpus for carrier qualification training. . he had been out drinking the night before and FELL ASLEEP after turning base leg and 'configuring' for landing . . he crashed 'wings level' and straight ahead into Corpus Bay.
He destroyed two other A/C after arriving in the Fleet . . before being shot down.
His nickname in Hanoi was "Songbird". . due to the information he willingly gave his captors. . tactical stuff. .like 'routes, altitudes', etc., that our guys used to fly from the boat to their targets and he got several aviators shot down and killed. He recorded 32+ propaganda bits (a la Tokyo Rose) to be played for our enlisted troops . . to undermine their moral.
The bogus 'story' about not coming home early, when he could have, is just common sense. He KNEW he would have been 'court-martialed' IF he had accepted any kind of early release, based upon his 'family connections'.
After his release, his Navy 'flying career' SHOULD have been over, based upon his permanent injuries, but, his dad intimidated a flight surgeon and he wrongly got back his flight medical status, when ANYONE else would NOT have 'passed' with his 'condition'. He was 'awarded' the position of XO at the Navy's largest training squadron, VA-174 at NAS Cecil and when the CO moved on, he was 'selected', over MANY more qualified officers, to become CO. .he used his position as XO and CO to take young (junior) female pilots on X-Country flights and screwed their brains out.
THAT is ILLEGAL in the military and he SHOULD have been convicted at Court Martial for 'fraternization' . .INSTEAD . .daddy got him moved out of the squadron and put in charge of the Navy's "Liaison" in DC . . along with a VERY early promotion to Captain . . the rest, as they say, is history.
John McCain is a scum bag . . a DISGRACE to the uniform he wore and his spots did not change when he became a politician!
As an aside, John McCain's admiral "daddy" was instrumental in the cover-up of the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) in 1967. Maybe "the apple didn't fall far from the tree". Read More Agree: Cloak And Dagger

[Jul 09, 2018] I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski 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!

[Jul 09, 2018] Charles Krauthammer: Finally they are hitting targets power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Robjil , July 5, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT

@MacNucc11

Yes, you are correct about that. The Yugoslav attack was on March 24, 1999. It was three weeks later than the last Purim – March 3 – Shushan Purim (walled city Purim – Jerusalem). Erev Purim (Eve of Purim) March 1 and March 2 – Purim. It wasn't exactly on the date of Purim as the middle east attacks in 1991 – Iraq, 2003 Iraq and 2011 Libya. But near enough to it for the Neocons.

Charles Krauthammer, a neocon who recently died, wanted civilians to be attacked in Yugoslavia in the 1999 NATO attack and he got his wish. This is his lovely quote.
"Finally they are hitting targets – power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters – that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby."

The'Balkan Action Committee' formed during the NATO 1999 attack on Yugoslavia consisted of neocons who lobbied hard for war against Yugoslavia. Committee members included these neocons – Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld – three men would later lobby again for another war in Iraq.

[Jul 09, 2018] The CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

redmudhooch , July 3, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT

IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?'

https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/

Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.

... ... ...

[Jul 09, 2018] "Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , September 11, 2015 at 9:21 am GMT

"Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

An affidavit sworn at the time of the arrest says that, between August 19 and August 28, Mr Goldberg "distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence".

US Attorney Lee Bentley III, said Goldberg instructed a confidential source how to make a bomb similar to two used in the Boston Marathon bombings two years ago that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

"Goldberg further admitted that he believed the information would create a genuine bomb," Agent Berry alleged.

In the leadup to an exhibition in Garland, Texas, at which pictures of the Prophet Mohammed were to be displayed, "Australi Witness" tweeted the event's address and reposted a tweet urging people to go there with "weapons, bombs or with knifes".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-is-jihadist-is-actually-an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html#ixzz3lQ8fY9YK
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Deduction , September 11, 2015 at 10:24 am GMT
@KA

Yes, Jews can be evil little sh*ts just like Muslims and indeed anyone can. It is the trend that matters, as nothing is all or nothing, but I repeat myself!

Anyway, I've got a question for you KA, to see if you can be consistent and whether you possess the supposedly stereotypical Middle Eastern shame mindset of all or nothing.

I'm a British anti-imperialist and I firmly believe that millions of British people should not start moving to Arab and Muslims countries and colonise them.

As I am an anti-imperialist I also believe that millions of Arabs and Muslims should not be allowed to move to Britain and furthermore that those who have already come here should go home.

Do you agree with me? Are you a consistent anti-imperialist? Or are you just playing for your team to win and conquer all?

[Jul 09, 2018] Pancake theory weakness: It is impossible that floors above break floors below and continue breaking them up to the ground level. If the floors below disintegrate, then the floors above also disintegrate.

Notable quotes:
"... normally you do not get steelbars to 400 Celsius because heat escapes by conduction and radiation ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 5:28 am GMT

@Momus

Momus writes:
"Showproof of your masters degree in engineering please.

Of course it was a gravitational collapse. The footage shows the section above the damaged, weakened, fire affected area coming down first in both.

What do you think happened?
Nanothermite toting Mossad suicide demolition gremlins entered the building after the planes hit and set up?"

Consider your proposal of pancaking floors. Either the floors do not disintegrate to dust and we find a pack of floors on top of each other in Ground Zero. This we know was not found. Or the floors hitting each other disintegrate to dust. In that case the floors from up disintegrate the floors from down, but the floors from down also disintegrate the floors from up and the collapse stops inn the middle of the building as the floors above that drop on the floors below have all disintegrated to dust. There is equal reaction to action, so it is impossible that floors above break floors below and continue breaking them up to the ground level. If the floors below disintegrate, then the floors above also disintegrate.

There are photos and videos of the collapse. Both may be false, but they are presented by the official story as authentic, so let us assume they are authentic. In these photos heavy material is pushed sideways and even up. It cannot happen in a gravitation collapse. Gravitation pulls things down only. No fires damaged the lower floors, they should have pancaked because of being hit by floors above, but as said, pancaking either gives a stack of floors or all disintegrate to dust and the collapse stops. The former case did not happen, no stack of floors was found.

There were high explosives and thermite, maybe as nanothermite. The building was wired for demolition before the event. A Mossad team arrived to the place before the plane came, the dancing Palestinians. Something hit the buildings, maybe planes, maybe drones with missiles. Later the buildings were pulled in a bit unconventional way. Doors to the roof were blocked for a better effect and more dead. A passport of a Muslim hijacker was conveniently found, so the news knew immediately who did it. Osama bin Laden first denied having done the attack. Then the USA went to destroy Iraq, which had irritated a country in the region. Something like this happened.

I will not post any diplomas on a forum. Take my word on this: High School 1976, ave 9.7/10, conscript 1976-77, Started studies Fall 1977 in the University of Helsinki (UH math). and in Helsinki Univ. Techn (HUT EE). Diplomas: BS Nov 1979 from UH, MS Dec 1979 from UH grade: eximia, MS EE Feb 1981 HUT with honors, that is 2.5 years for two master degrees. Phil.Lis,(=PhD 3.cycle) 1985 from UH, Doctor of Phil.(PhD) 1988 from UH, Docent (=habilitation, adj.prof) HUT 1997, Docent NDU 2011. Professor for 13 years in three universities in communication and military technology. 10 years of research/development outside academia. 10 years prof. in the defence forces. This should be enough to equal any ex-navy guy who got a degree in Philosophy and stopped before making a PhD and calls others wackadoodles.

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Wizard writes:
"Well, if the explanation for the second tower to be hit coming down first was amended to note that there was the weight of many more floors above the point of impact would you still use the word "idiotic"? How otherwise do you explain the timing? I presume you don't think each plane hit at exactly the levels which some plotters had relied on????"

The timing of a controlled demolition is determined by the person pressing the button. It does not need any technical explanation.

I discard the gravitational fall theory for a number of reasons. Here are three, but there are more:
1) the extremely temperatures long time after 9/11. I remember well when these were told in the news in my country, it was long before any 911Truthers proposed controlled demolition. High temperatures long after the event are best explained by very high temperatures just after the event, which suggests thermite, or something similar causing very high temperatures, 3000 Celsius or so.
2) Throwing material sideways and up is impossible for gravitation. The videos and photos may be falsified, but if so, they were falsified by the ones proposing the official explanation. The collapse in the videos does not at all resemble a gravitational fall, which you can see e.g. in icebergs.
3) The pancaking theory is false. I did read the paper by Bazant and a student. The equations are fine, the values set to them are not fine. I agree with 911Truthers concerning Bazant's article.

I do not indeed think the planes hit exactly on planned places, I also do not think the planes caused the collapse. I also find your suggestion for timing very odd: if fires had weakened the steel and that caused the collapse of one floor, then it is completely irrelevant how many stores were above the level. The time would be determined by the time to heat the steel to the point that is loses strength. The time would likely be different in different towers, but mainly because isolation material would be differently thorn, the fuel would be in different places and so on. The weight above the floor would not much matter since before the collapse the structure can keep it up, and if the temperature rises enough then it cannot. Fire can bring down a building, but the way it came down looks very suspicious. It looks like a fountain throwing material up.

I would still use the word "idiotic" for any suggestion that the fall was by gravitation. I would also use the same word for your elaboration of the suggestion by the timing consideration, though in some other topics I acknowledge the reason and knowledge in your comments. And I especially liked the news that one hijacker's passport landed on the ground so nicely and that Mossad had a team videoing the event before the plane hit the tower. Both things are so typical for a gravitational collapse but only in the USA.

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Wizard wrote:
"I don't suppose there is any area of science or engineering where I can claim more to you but I do know enough to prep an expert witness and I am not convinced you can justify your denial that an extra 1000 tons or so on top of a weakened area would be unrelated to time taken for collapse. Let me put it this way: if the steel structures which had to cease supporting the building above had reached through heat a point where it had lost 75 per cent of the original strength maybe 2 X tons of potential energy would be needed to cause collapse whereas only X tons would be needed if, through further heating, 90 per cent had been lost."

You might well convince the jury in a court room, but I do not think engineers would buy this argument, because they would naturally agree with what you said but then they would continue to estimate the time between these two events. If you get the steel bars to 400 Celsius, when it still has not lost any of its strength, it will not take long to get it to 650 Celsius when half of the strength has gone. Try heating lead, it is the easiest metal to try at home. For a long time nothing happens, but when lead starts to soften it very soon melts.

The trick is to get those steelbars to 425 Celsius when they start to soften. To get them so hot you need a major fire in the building lasting for a long time, but once you already have this major fire, the temperature of the steel easily rises close to 1000 Celsius, which is the burning temperature of jet fuel and office fires. Why would it not rise, if it rose so high?

That is, normally you do not get steelbars to 400 Celsius because heat escapes by conduction and radiation , but if you got the conditions that put in heat in faster than it gets out (it is hot everywhere, heat cannot escape), the temperature of the steel will rise very fast. Think about the lead example. It takes a long time to get it to soften, since the heat conducts to the whole piece. You have to rise the temperature of all your lead to the softening point, but then it is all hot and heat cannot escape to cooler places, so it fast gets hotter.

Wizard of Oz , July 6, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@j2

Thank you witness

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Or let me put it another way. 911Truthers say (I have not check, but nobody has denied) that only 4 steel frame skyscrapers in all times have collapsed because of fire (3 in 9/11 and one in Brazil 2018) and many of these buildings burned long. It means that the steel frame in the other buildings never softened, did not reach 500-700 Celsius, because heating steel the heat escapes unless the beams are very thin. You get a heat gradient, but if you put in less heat than can escape.

It is like pouring water to a bowl with a hole in the bottom. If you pour less than can go out, it just does not fill. But if you pour faster, then the water level rises and it rises quite fast. So, you need a major fire to get the steel to 425 Celsius when it starts to soften, but if you get it there, you must be putting in more heat than can go out and therefore the steel temperature will rise fast to the temperature of your fire. There should not be much time between steel starting to soften and steel losing 50% of its strength.

There are measurements that the steel in WTC buildings did not get to high enough temperatures to lose enough strength. But my main argument was that what determines how high the steel temperature goes is how badly thorn is heat isolation and how big are the fires. These things should have been different in the towers and they do not depend on how many stores were above the plane (or something).

There are too many things wrong with the official 9/11 story. It cannot be defended outside a kangaroo court.

[Jul 09, 2018] The myth of Jewish "superintellegnce" as a part of Zionism set of myths

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

bj , July 4, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT

@j2

"As this is the reason, there are twice as many Jews above some range, like 151, than non-Jewish whites, which is what Terman found. "

Jew IQ is largely a myth established by marketing and media control, starting with the Einstein brand. The myth is necessary to justify and conceal Jewish tribal nepotism as the main factor establishing dominance of a hostile elite in host nations. The question has been examined in numerous locations easily found with a search engine.

https://archive.org/stream/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein_djvu.txt

"If Jews are 2% of US population, that is 7 million Jews. 117,000 of them have IQs above 140.

If there are 190 million non-Hispanic Whites in America, 730,000 of them have IQs above 140."

https://greyenlightenment.com/vox-day-v-jordan-peterson-on-jewish-iq/

There are approximately six times as many white Americans with IQ above 140, as there are Jews with IQ above 140. No, Jewish intelligence does not account for their dominance in academia, media, and government. It must be Jew priviledge, not Jew IQ that justifies their right to rule the goyim.

[Jul 09, 2018] Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , September 13, 2015 at 1:28 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

(Sigh.) Sorry you don't notice that I'm not engaging.

Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

[Jul 09, 2018] Jerusalem as a capital of Israel

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , July 4, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.

Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?

The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never left in the first place.

The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).

At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
@renfro

In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."

Exactly.
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, writes:

Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.

[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 09, 2018] Radical Jews of the Hasidic type are also acting thuggish on American streets, like in Brooklyn where they committed assault, battery and kidnapping on a bicyclist.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , Website July 3, 2018 at 7:13 pm GMT

It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez-if elected–sticks to her principles or succumbs to the shekel storm headed her way.

Radical Jews of the Hasidic type are also acting thuggish on American streets, like in Brooklyn where they committed assault, battery and kidnapping on a bicyclist.

These kind of fanatics are growing in numbers all over the USA.

If you think Trump is spineless towards Israel, wait until Israel's next choice for POTUS, Nutty Nikky Haley steals the WH.

[Jul 09, 2018] Feeding the Monster, by Philip Giraldi

While secular "cultural nationalism" is probably essential to the survival of the nation, far right nationalism is a cancer.
There is a vicious spiral: Israel actions, which are essentially American-style colonization of the territory, radicalize Palestinians, and their actions in turn radicalize Jews feeling far right nationalism.
The early Zionists were mostly atheist. Zionists quoting the Bible for legitimacy of their land claims I'd take with a pinch of salt regarding their sincerity.
Notable quotes:
"... "No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers' strikes. The idea that we are not supposed to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me." ..."
"... I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs ..."
"... As Kevin Macdonald would point out Middle Eastern peoples are extreme in their ethnocentricism, explaining the chronic instability in the region, but Jews are at the extreme end of that extremism. The media does a good job of covering up the hypoethnocentricism evident in Jewish life in Israel and the West. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

One paragraph in particular in the article I read was highly suggestive, the claim that Ocasio-Cortez had been strongly opposed to the Israelis' routine slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, which has by now become of such little import that it is not even reported any more in the U.S. media. She is also allegedly a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS), which pressures Israel to end its theft and occupation of Palestinian land. The article expressed some surprise that anyone in New York City would dare to say anything unpleasant about Israel and still expect to get elected.

This is what Ocasio-Cortez, who called the shooting of more than 130 Gazans a "massacre," actually said and wrote :

"No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers' strikes. The idea that we are not supposed to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me."

Five hours later, when I arrived home in Virginia I went to pull up the article I had read in the morning to possibly use it in a piece of my own and was somewhat surprised to discover that the bit about Israel had been excised from the text. It was clearly yet another example of how the media self-censors when there is anything negative to say about Israel and it underlines the significance of the emergence of recent international media reporting in The Guardian and elsewhere regarding how Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson largely dictates U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. That means that the conspiracy of silence over Israel's manipulation of the United States government is beginning to break down and journalists have become bold enough to challenge what occurs when pro-Israel Jews obtain real power over the political process. Adelson, for what it's worth, wants war with Iran and has even suggested detonating a nuclear device on its soil to "send a message."

I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans.

The question of the relationship with Israel comes at a time when everyone in America, so it seems, is concerned about children being separated from their parents who have illegally crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The concern is legitimate given the coarse and sometimes violent justifications coming out of the White House, but it's a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium. When a Jewish fanatic/Israel settler kills Palestinian children and is protected by his government in so doing, where is the outrage in the U.S. media? Settlers and soldiers kill Palestinians, young and old, with impunity and are almost never punished. They destroy their orchards and livestock to eliminate their livelihoods to drive them out. They bulldoze their homes and villages. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency does none of that and is yet subject to nonstop abuse in the mainstream media, so what about Israel?

A recent story illustrates just how horrible the Israelis can be without any pushback whatsoever coming from Washington objecting to their behavior. As the United States is the only force that can in any way compel Israel to come to its senses and chooses not to do so, that makes U.S. policymakers and by extension the American people complicit in Israel's crimes.

The particularly horrible recent account that I am referring to describes how fanatical Jewish settlers burned alive a Palestinian family on the West Bank, including a baby, and then celebrated the deaths while taunting the victims' surviving family when they subsequently appeared in court. 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.

Israeli Jewish settlers carried out their shameful deed outside a court in the city of Lod, chanting "'Ali was burned, where is Ali? There is no Ali. Ali is burned. On the fire. Ali is on the grill!" referring to the 18-month old baby Ali Dawabsheh, who was burnt alive in 2015 by Jewish settlers hurling Molotov cocktails into a house in the West Bank town of Duma. Ali's mother Riham and father Saad also died of their burns and were included in the chanting "Where is Ali? Where is Riham? Where is Saad? It's too bad Ahmed didn't burn as well." Five year-old Ahmed, who alone survived the attack with severe burns, will have scars for the rest of his life.

The settlers were taunting Ali's grandfather Hussein Dawabsheh, who accompanied Ahmed, at a preliminary hearing where the court indicted a man who confessed to the murders and a minor who acted as an accomplice. A video of the chanting shows Israeli policemen standing by and doing nothing. The court appearance also revealed that there have been another Molotov cocktail attack by settlers on another Dawabsheh family house in May that may have been an attempt to silence testimony relating to the first attack. Fortunately, the family managed to escape.

And by all accounts this outrage was not the first incident in which the burning of the Palestinian baby was celebrated. A December 15 th wedding video showed settlers engaged in an uproarious party that featured dances with Molotov cocktails and waving knives and guns. A photo of baby Ali was on display and was repeatedly stabbed. A year later, 13 people from what became known as the "murder wedding" were indicted for incitement to terrorism, but as of today no one has actually been punished. Israelis who kill Arabs are rarely indicted or tried. If it is a soldier or policeman that is involved, which occurs all too often, the penalty is frequently either nothing at all a slap on the wrist. Indeed, the snipers who fired on Gazans recently were actually ordered to shoot the unarmed civilians and directed to take out anyone who appeared to be a "leader," which included medical personnel.

The Trump Administration could, of course, stop the Israeli brutality if it chooses to do so, but it does not think Benjamin Netanyahu's crimes against humanity are on the agenda. Nor did Clinton, Bush and Obama dare to confront the power of Israel's lobby, though Obama tried a little pushback in a feeble way.

Someone in Washington should be asking why the United States should be fighting unnecessary wars and becoming an international pariah defending a country and people that believe they are "chosen" by God? One can only hope that the shift in perceptions on the Middle East by liberal Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez has some legs and will lead to some real change in U.S. foreign policy. To succeed the liberal Democrats will need to push against some formidable obstacles within their own party, most notably the Clinton wing and people like Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the Senate, who describes himself as Israel's "shomer" or defender in the Upper House. Perhaps someone on the New York Times editorial board should publicly suggest to Schumer that he go and run for office in Israel since he seems to prefer it to the country that has made him rich and powerful. But of course, the Times and all the other mainstream media, which is responsible for what we are not allowed to know about Israel and its American mouthpieces, will never entertain that suggestion or anything like it.

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.


Someone , July 3, 2018 at 5:12 am GMT

No one should know this better than the Jews- that negativity never ends well.
Tyrion 2 , Website July 3, 2018 at 6:20 am GMT

I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs

Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country. The two settlers guilty of arson are disgusting zealots. But their type is exponentially more common in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.

The criticism of Israel in Western media is disproportionately extremely high given the much higher rates of this type of thing in the majority of the rest of the world.

As for sniping the leaders of a huge mob trying to invade your country/storm your borders, doesn't that seem like the most humane way to deal with it? What does Giraldi suggest they do?

I suppose Western anti-Semites see Western countries going down because they are unable to deal with this type of thing and get jealous and want to drag Israel down with them. I prefer that America follow the example of Matteo Salvini. Giraldi prefers 'abolish borders' Cortez. Indeed, he'd like her to "go a lot farther".

Mishra , July 3, 2018 at 6:30 am GMT

Washington's spinelessness enables Israeli brutality

Why is "Washington" spineless? Why don't the people demand more principled leaders?

Well, where do the people get their ideas anyway? The mass media.

Who owns the mass media? Why can't it even be discussed?

All we get on this topic is lies, some right here on UNZ.

Yet some here now and then dare to speak the truth.

And as a result this site is under assault.

EOLAWKI , July 3, 2018 at 8:22 am GMT
Washington is not spineless. Washington is bought and paid for. In America, the general rule is that money rules, and the people (and their political representatives!) follow.
The Alarmist , July 3, 2018 at 8:35 am GMT

" I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers' strikes."

Only 60? We really have become a nation of p ***** s. If we're going to be an empire that pushes the rest of the world around, we need to act like one. The Byzantine General Belisaurius, under Justinian I, put down the Nika riots by killing as many as 30,000 people, and the Byzantine empire went on for another 900 years. If we dither over 60 people, we won't last another 50 years.

As for the Israelis, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, but given the number of nukes they are reputed to have and the global reach they seem to have, they are going to take the rest of us with them if the US simply walks away from them and leaves them on their own.

LondonBob , July 3, 2018 at 9:52 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

As Kevin Macdonald would point out Middle Eastern peoples are extreme in their ethnocentricism, explaining the chronic instability in the region, but Jews are at the extreme end of that extremism. The media does a good job of covering up the hypoethnocentricism evident in Jewish life in Israel and the West.

Z-man , July 3, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
That crazed looking group of young fanatical Zionists taunting a Palestinian mother and child is a classic. ZOG has got to be defeated!
However , speaking of that 'Latina' who beat a political hack in Queens and the Bronx, she's already started to edit some of her internet posts. She knows who rules and will get in line with the 'mainstream' Zionist party line. She's also an 'open borders' radical which doesn't sit well with the likes of me and most Americans. She's also a 'Bronx girl' by way of suburban Westchester county, lol. As phony as phony gets.
Rogue , July 3, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
@Echoes of History

The verse in question was specifically regarding the church in Jerusalem. In other words, financial help by gentile believers for Jewish followers of Jesus who were impoverished at that time.

It is not to be interpreted as a general charity for Jews, most of whom are hostile to Christianity both then and today. Bible verses have to be read within the context of the surrounding text.

Zionism is hardly a religious movement.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 3, 2018 at 10:26 am GMT
@LondonBob

Jews are probably the least ethnocentric, other than the 4% of global population that is Western European, in the world.

Echoes of History , July 3, 2018 at 10:32 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country.

Better yet to be a Jewish minority in any place but Israel.

It's weird how the vast majority of Jews themselves can't be persuaded into moving to Israel, but would rather be a minority elsewhere. Why is that so? Not so great a place as you purport?

The total number of people who hold or are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return is estimated at around 23 million, of which 6.6 million were living in Israel as of 2015. wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country

UncommonGround , July 3, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
@Mishra

Well, where do the people get their ideas anyway? The mass media.

In Germany there was recently a bad case of antisemitism which was reported widely in the media. A large newspaper had a long article telling how a Jewish pupil in an elite school in Berlin was harassed or bullyed for months and that the school didn't do enough to protect him. It's a school to which the sons of ambassators, of diplomatic personal and of the international high class community in Berlin go. The article brought many details about the case: how they told the pupil that Ausschwitz wasn't far away (or something similar) and so on. The case even came in the television news of the main German channel (I only watched the late news, but I think that the case also came in the absolutely main news of German television at 8 o'clock P.M.). The media spoke of "antisemitism in Berlin." A pupil was harassed and told a few unpleasant things in a school in Berlin and this came in the main tv news of the country! The most important weekly magazine had also an article about "antisemitism in Berlin". At the end of the long article they told something that the other midia hadn't told. The pupil had been harassed because he favoured the Palestinians! The colleagues who bullyed him were probably American Jews.

WorkingClass , July 3, 2018 at 11:07 am GMT

but it's a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium.

Also the intentional starving of children in Yemen. And the huge pile of dead babies in Iraq, Libya and Syria. All of them murdered by Imperial Washington.

I much prefer President Trump to any of the candidates he defeated in the primaries and general election. But I regret that he is a Jew.

geokat62 , July 3, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
Here's an interesting tidbit about AOC:

Newly popular Democratic politician hero and nominee for a seat in the U.S. Congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used to have these words on her website:

A Peace Economy

"Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops home and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and occupation throughout the world."

Now they're gone. Asked about it on Twitter, she replied:

"Hey! Looking into this. Nothing malicious! Site is supporter-run so things happen -we'll get to the bottom of it."

https://alethonews.com/2018/06/30/why-it-matters-that-peace-is-gone-from-ocasio-cortez-website/

It'll be interesting to see if these words ever reappear. I'll keep you posted if and when that happens.

ISmellBagels , July 3, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez will/can maintain her position on Israeli crimes. Public figures have a long history of backpedaling after getting the riot act read to them from the hebrew masters.
ISmellBagels , July 3, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@WorkingClass

Trump is not a Jew, just Jewifiied.

utu , July 3, 2018 at 11:33 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

Jews are probably the least ethnocentric

Because Jews are cosmocentric. The center of the whole universe.

Incitatus , July 3, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

"The two settlers guilty of arson are disgusting zealots."

Correction. They're unrepentant murderers, empowered by disgusting zealots tolerated (if not pampered) by Likud.

"But their type is exponentially more common in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on"

The 'they do it too' defense? So what? How many F-35s is the US giving Iraq, Syria, Iran?

Why should Likud conduct be excused by comparing it to those Israel routinely condemns?

"As for sniping the leaders of a huge mob trying to invade your country/storm your borders, doesn't that seem like the most humane way to deal with it?"

Does "sniping" mean shooting/killing/maiming unarmed people from a safe distance? Without risk to the sniper?

That's "more humane" than water-cannon, tear gas, and other non-lethal restraint? For the sniper, perhaps, but for the victim?

Sounds like the same rationalization murderers used at Babi-Yar.

"The criticism of Israel in Western media is disproportionately extremely high given the much higher rates of this type of thing in the majority of the rest of the world."

American media is disproportionately silent in criticism of Likud compared with Israeli media. Why?

"I suppose Western anti-Semites see Western countries going down because they are unable to deal with this type of thing and get jealous and want to drag Israel down with them."

In other words, Trump should use snipers and live fire on illegal immigrants crossing borders? Wow!

Nelle , July 3, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
These people used to be called Judeonazis by Hebrew University chemistry professor Israel Shahak and by the noted "radio rabbi", Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Both predicted that the occupation would be Israel's downfall. Likely it is the downfall of the Palestinian people and possibly the rest of us. (Note that Israel has nuclear weapons and its policy of "nishtagea" – pulling down the temple around Sampson-type threat – is meant to guarantee its hegemony in the region. That suits the US down to the ground, where the oil is.
Mulegino1 , July 3, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT
What are we to expect from a criminal state, founded by international terrorists like Ben Gurion, Begin, Yitzakh Shamir, etc.?

If it had been Palestinian terrorists who had blown up the King David Hotel, murdered Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte, and Jewish women and children in Deir Yassin, you would see monuments to these victims all over the western world, Hollywood films by the score, and the kvetching from the usual suspects would only have been amplified over time. If it had been Palestinian terrorists who concocted the Lavon Affair false flag plan, or Palestinian naval and air forces which attacked an American naval vessel in broad daylight, flying a large American flag and attempted to murder the entire crew, likewise. There would be memorials in Arlington, and all over the U.S., to the brave crew members and their captain, whose actions saved the vessel. Instead all we get are crickets chirping.

For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.

How prescient and prophetic these words were, written decades before the founding of the criminal entity in Palestine! Israel does not serve as a Jewish homeland, it serves as a base of criminal operations, a weapons depot, and a sanctuary for international fugitives from justice

anti_republocrat , July 3, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Now that the Israeli-backed head choppers and liver eaters have been defeated, Syria has returned to the the multi-confessional, pluralistic paradise it always was when compared with the abomination West of the Jordan River. Before the establishment of the Zionist state, Jews as well as Christians were welcome in Arab states. Even after 1948, Sephardim did not immediately flock to Israel.

When Ashkenazi Zionists discovered they had created a labor shortage by ethnically cleansing Palestinians, they embarked on a propaganda and false flag campaign to get Sephardim to migrate to Israel, where many of those well-educated and formerly wealthy Jews were discriminated against and forced to take menial jobs. The false flags designed specifically to stampede Jews out of Iraq are well documented, so don't lie about it, Tyrion. Jews were among the wealthiest of Iraqis, and had little organic reason to emigrate. The propaganda of Arab governments expelling the Sephardim is largely false.

The racist, European (white) supremacist narrative (what Edward Said called "Orientalism") that Arabs and Muslims are always killing each other and Europe must intervene for humanitarian reasons is actively cultivated by Israel in order to justify its own ethno-supremacist society. That's why Israel encourages Wahhabi terrorism emanating from the Gulf.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 3, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
@anti_republocrat

Syria has returned to the the multi-confessional, pluralistic paradise it always was when compared with the abomination West of the Jordan River

The number of deaths in a single year of the Syrian conflict exceed the last 70 years of the Palestinian-Israeli one. Try again.

bjondo , July 3, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country. The two settlers guilty of arson are disgusting zealots. But their type is exponentially more common in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.

The minority groups in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, would laugh at you and the Jew of Iran prefer Iran to Israel. These sorts of lunatics, without Israeli, West interference, are rare in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.

Israel is dominated by disgusting zealots. Israel is a zealot state of zealots.

Does hasbarRat mean blatant liar?

Also,

another excellent article by Philip Giraldi.

[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 08, 2018] The Doctrine of 'Superior People', by James Petras

As a side note all "nation IQ" arguments are scientifically fake/ Izreal and South africa of the past share the same problem and Izreal might eventually come to the same utcome.
Notable quotes:
"... The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims 'Jews are a superior people'. ..."
"... Israel's dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to intervene in US politics and push Israel's agenda. ..."
"... What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel? After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the highest positions of prestige and responsibility. ..."
"... What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel? ..."
"... Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive role. ..."
"... After all is it Jewish 'genius' that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America? ..."
"... In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as 'examples of Jewish Supremacy', have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations – giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction. ..."
"... Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we d find a disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of 'Jewish genius' to a list of financial mega-felons. ..."
"... The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period – including the horrific suffering these have entailed! ..."
"... Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can always find safe haven in the 'Promised Land'! ..."
"... Donations from financial billionaires, all 'geniuses', have financed the war crimes of the Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions. ..."
Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction:

The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims 'Jews are a superior people'.

Apart from small extremist rightwing sects who exhibit visceral anti-Semitism and denigrate everything Jewish, there are very few academics and politicians willing to question this supremacist doctrine. On the contrary, there is an incurable tendency to advance oneself by accepting and embellishing on it.

For example, in August 2015, US Vice-President Joseph Biden attributed 'special genius' to Jews, slavish flattery that embarrassed even New York's liberal Jewish intellectuals.

Israel's dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to intervene in US politics and push Israel's agenda.

What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel? After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the highest positions of prestige and responsibility. Why would they parrot the policies of Israel and follow the dictates of Israeli leaders (a foreign regime), serving its violent colonial, racist agenda?

What binds a majority of highly educated and privileged Jews to the most rabidly rightwing Israeli regime in history – a relationship they actually celebrate?

What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?

What prevents many intelligent, liberal and progressive Jews from openly questioning Israel's agenda, and especially confronting the role of Zionist zealots who serve as Tel Aviv's fifth column against the interest of the United States?

There are numerous historical and personal factors that can and should be taken into account to understand this phenomenon.

In this essay I am going to focus on one – the ideology that 'Jews are a superior people'. The notion that Jews, either through some genetic, biologic, cultural, historical, familial and/or upbringing, have special qualities allowing them to achieve at a uniquely higher level than the 'inferior' non-Jews.

We will proceed by sketching the main outline of the Jewish supremacist ideology and then advance our critique.

We will conclude by evaluating the negative consequences of this ideology and propose a democratic alternative.

Jewish Supremacism

Exponents of Jewish Supremacism (JS) frequently cite the prestigious awards, worldly successes and high honors, which, they emphasize, have been disproportionately achieved by Jews.

The argument goes: While Jews represent less than 0.2% of the world population, they have produced 24% of the US Nobel prize winners; over 30% of Ivy League professors and students; and the majority of major US film, stage and TV producers.

They cite the 'disproportionate number' of scientists, leading doctors, lawyers and billionaires.

They cite past geniuses like, Einstein, Freud and Marx .

They point to the founders of the world's great monotheistic religions – Moses and Abraham.

They lay claim to a unique learning tradition embedded in centuries of Talmudic scholarship.

Jewish supremacists never miss a chance to cite the 'Jewish background' of any highly accomplished contemporary public figures in the entertainment, publication, financial fields or any other sectors of life in the US.

Disproportionately great accomplishments by a disproportionate minority has become the mantra for heralding a self-styled 'meritocratic elite' . and for justifying its disproportionate wealth, power and privileges – and influence

Challenging the Myths of Jewish Supremacists

There are serious problems regarding the claims of the Jewish Supremacists.

For centuries Jewish 'wisdom' was confined to textual exegesis of religious dogma – texts full of superstition and social control, as well as blind intolerance, and which produced neither reasoned arguments nor contributed to scientific and human advancement.

Jewish scholarship of note occurred among thinkers like Spinoza who revolted against the Jewish ghetto gatekeepers and rejected Jewish dogma.

Notable scientists emerged in the context of working and studying with non-Jews in non-Jewish institutions – the universities and centers of learning in the West. The majority of world-renowned Jewish scholars integrated and contributed to predominantly non-Jewish (Moslem and Christian) and secular institutions of higher learning.

Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society.

Secondly , Jewish Supremacists persist in claiming 'racial credit' for the achievements of individuals who have publically renounced, denounced and distanced themselves from Judaism and have dismissed any notion of Israel as their spiritual homeland. Their universal prestige has prevented them from being labeled, apostate or 'self-hating'. Albert Einstein, often cited by the Supremacists as the supreme example of 'Jewish genius', denounced Israel's war crimes and showed disdain for any tribal identity. In their era, Marx and Trotsky, like the vast majority of emancipated European Jews, given the chance, became engaged in universalistic organizations, attacking the entire notion that Jews were a 'special people' chosen by divine authority (or by the latter-day Zionists).

Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive role.

After all is it Jewish 'genius' that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America?

Among the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are three Israeli Prime Ministers who waged wars of ethnic cleansing against millions of Palestinians and expanded racist 'Jews only' settlements throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. These include Menachem Begin (notorious career bomber and terrorist), Yitzhak Rabin (a militarist who was assassinated by an even more racist Jewish terrorist) and Shimon Peres. Among Jewish American Nobel 'Peaceniks' is Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the 'template for regime change' by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chilean President Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state terror; and who supported Indonesia's destruction of East Timor!

In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as 'examples of Jewish Supremacy', have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations – giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction.

Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we d find a disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of 'Jewish genius' to a list of financial mega-felons.

Among the less respectable notables whose material successes have been tarnished by personal weaknesses – we have the billionaire and pedophile pimp, Jeffry Epstein; IMF President, rapist and debaucher Dominic Strauss Kahn, entrepreneur and 'nudist' Dov Charney, New York Governor and 'repeat customer' Elliot Spitzer, Congressman and exhibitionist Anthony Weiner and the fun-loving sports impresario who brought down FIFA, the piratical Chuck Blazer. Curiously, none of these extraordinarily successful notables have been cited as examples of Jewish Supremacy.

As we contemplate the millions of war refugees driven from the Near East and North Africa, we should credit the role of US neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologues and policymakers –a disproportionate percentage of whom are Jews. Millions of Chilean workers suffered as Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys 'advised' Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet on dismantling the welfare state (even if it required the murder of trade unionists!). Ayn Rand (Alyssa Rosenbaum) and her fanatical free market epigones have savaged all progressive social legislation and turned the most retrograde forms of selfishness into a religion of 'superiority'!

The disastrous US war against Iraq was largely organized, promoted and justified by a disproportionate percentage of US Jews (Zionists), including leading policymakers in the Bush and Obama administration – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, David Frum, Shulsky, Levey, Cohen, Rahm Emanuel etc They continue to push for war against Iran and should be seen as the 'godfathers' of the tragedies of Iraq, Syria and Libya where millions have fled.

The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period – including the horrific suffering these have entailed!

Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can always find safe haven in the 'Promised Land'!

On the cultural front, the finest Jewish writers, artists, musicians, scientists have emerged outside of Israel. A few may have immigrated to the Jewish state, but many other intellectuals and artists of note have chosen to leave Israel, repelled by the racist, intolerant and repressive apartheid state and society promoted by Jewish Supremacists.

Conclusion

The record provides no historical basis for the claims of Jewish Supremacists:

What has been cited as the disproportionate 'Jewish genius' turns out to be a two-edged sword – demonstrating the best and the worst.

Claiming a monopoly on high academic achievement must be expanded to owning up to the Jewish authors of the worst financial and foreign policy disasters – they too are 'high achievers'.

Donations from financial billionaires, all 'geniuses', have financed the war crimes of the Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions.

In fairness, the most notorious Jewish swindler in contemporary America was even-handed: 'Bernie' Madoff swindled Jews and Goys, Hollywood moguls and New York philanthropists – he wasn't picky about who he fleeced.

The latest fashion among Jewish Supremacist 'geneticists' is to extoll the discovery of uniquely special 'genes' predisposing Jews to experience the 'holocaust' and even inherit the experience of suffering from long dead ancestors. Such 'scientists' should be careful. As Jazz artist and essayist, Gilad Altzmon wryly notes, 'They will put the anti-Semites out of business'.

Ultimately, Jews, who have assimilated into the greater society or not, who inter-marry and who do not, are all products of the social system in which they live and (like everyone else) they are the makers of the roles they decide to play within it.

In the past, a uniquely disproportional percentage of Jews chose to fight for universal humanist values – rejecting the notion of a chosen people.

Today a disproportionate percentage of educated Jews have chosen to embrace an 'ethno-religious' Supremacist dogma, which binds them to an apartheid, militarist state and ideology ready to drag the world into a global war.

Never forget! Racialist supremacist doctrines led Germany down the blind ally of totalitarianism and world war, in which scores of millions perished.

Jews, especially young Jews, are increasingly repelled by Israel's crimes against humanity. The next step for them (and for us) is to criticize, demystify and stand up to the toxic supremacist ideology linking the powerful domestic Zionist power configuration and its political clones with Israel.

The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia: a demented ideology that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate and exploit the majority of American people. The time will come when the accumulated disasters will force the Americans people to push back, unmasking the elite and rejecting its supremacist doctrines. Let us hope that they will act with passion guided by reason.


Sonic , September 7, 2015 at 7:20 am GMT

Well written essay.

The simple answer to the questions posed in the beginning is that everything comes down to one's beliefs.

If you believe yourself to be superior and combine that with a hard-work ethic, you will create that which you took as a natural given. The belief system of Judaism evolved from one that was primarily concerned with pleasing God and working towards the afterlife to one primarily concerned with creating heaven on earth and working towards the material life. Such doctrines are at the heart of any materialistic ideology. It is a materialistic ideology that over-indulges in matters of material wealth, accomplishment, and worldly success. But such an ideology was certainly not the way of Abraham or Moses (or Jesus or Muhammad – saaws).

So it must be said (and it must be a lesson for every other group, nation, or tribe on earth): the mixing of race/tribe with religion is wrong. Judaism has largely become (I know that there are reform movements that differ with such orthodoxy) a religious and ethnic identity to the point where both become one and the same. A good comment was made above about the distinction (or lack thereof) between a Jewish atheist and a Jewish rabbi.

I don't think it too out of the ordinary to understand how and why the doctrine of Jewish supremacism found a cozy home in the United States. The US has had its own doctrine of exceptionalism for a very long time (just ask the Native Americans). Migration away from the familiarity of one's extended family and indigenous people by the early colonialists, along with a framework of post-enlightenment secularism led many Americans to become ignorant of their own religion. Success, the spoils of war, and material abundance added to all that of course. And so, most American Christians (which last time I checked, still form the majority of the US) forgot the criticism of the Jews that Jesus (as) and the Bible taught! Instead, they began to pick and choose what is convenient to follow as far as their faith goes. It is far more convenient to fall into praise and worship of those who have a monopoly with regards to power and authority (especially through mass media), rather than follow in the footsteps of great religious leaders who constantly challenged those in power.

What is described in the above article does indeed resemble other supremacist and racist ideologies. From Arab Baathism to German Nazism; the Aryan Nations to the Black Panthers; American Exceptionalism to European Manifest Destiny these are all alike in that they emanate from the very darkness of our souls. The first racist/supremacist was iblis (lucifer) i.e. satan (the leader of the devils). He felt he and those made of the same substance as him were superior to us (human beings). But it is God who creates all living things and all types of substances without discrimination or prejudice. The cosmetic differences then are a test for us to see who will do good, and who will fall into evil (by way of our own free-will).

In the Farewell Sermon, Prophet Muhammad (saaws) said: " All mankind is from Adam and Eve; an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab, and a White has no superiority over a Black nor does a Black have any superiority over a White; except through piety and good deeds "

JoaoAlfaiate , September 7, 2015 at 12:18 pm GMT
Whenever I am reminded of the disproportionate number of Jews who receive Nobel Prizes, I always like to point out that if there were Nobel prizes for networking, Jews would get 100% of them.
jb , September 7, 2015 at 12:56 pm GMT
Lame! The article doesn't even try to explain how such a small percentage of the world's population manages to produce such a large percentage of the world's most productive scientists and intellectuals. If our hypothesis is that certain ethnic Jewish populations have, on average, higher native IQs than other peoples, then the fact that many of those scientists and intellectuals have renounced their Judaism becomes entirely irrelevant. Further, if we are talking about intellectual superiority, rather than moral superiority, then it is to be expected that Jews would also excel at villainy. As far as I can see, this column offers no argument and introduces no evidence that is inconsistent with the hypothesis of Jewish intellectual superiority. (And no, I am not Jewish).
Moi , September 7, 2015 at 1:23 pm GMT
@Mark Green

The notion of Chosen will bring about the downfall of the Jews–and, sadly, Exceptionalism will be downfall of our own country.

WorkingClass , September 7, 2015 at 1:25 pm GMT
Jewish is an ethnicity. Zionist is an ideology. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. It is Zionist ideology and not Jewish ethnicity that is making trouble in the world. The idea of the supremacy of ethnic Jews is as silly as the idea of the supremacy of Texans. Apartheid and expansionism are policies of Zionists and rightfully should be condemned and resisted.
Wizard of Oz , September 7, 2015 at 1:30 pm GMT
This sort of tossed-off-the-top-of-the-head stuff (none of it new or refreshed with original thinking or research) is rather a waste of time. No doubt the natural tribalism and group purpose that one can find in lots of ethnic and other groups is or seems to outsiders particularly formidable when found in a group that has an average IQ almost a sd above other whites', strives mightily and has a 3000 year history, for most of it literate, attached to a particular homeland. But I have found without the sort of well researched references I would expect from the author more supremacist chatter amongst young Chinese blog commenters than from anyone else.

There are obvious elements of truth that one glimpse in this piece but the author does remarkably little to support his argument beyond assertion.

Tom_R , September 7, 2015 at 2:46 pm GMT
JUDAISTS MENTALLY DERANGED TO THINK THEY ARE GOD'S CHOSEN; MOST SUCCESS BY CORRUPT MEANS.

Thanks for the excellent article, Sir. Peter the Great does a great job again! You are right on everything but I would like to add a couple of points.

1. Believing your ethnic group is "chosen" is a delusion, which is a symptom of mental illness:

God (if there is one), who created all people, would never label one group over the other, a priori. And if God did so, he would come and tell the others to respect his favorite group over themselves. God never came and told me or others I know that "Jews" are His "Chosen" and we are not. Never, never once in my life. Others' religious books never record any such commandment from God. For a group to engage in shameless self-adulation and then falsely ascribe it to God is repugnant and an evil fraud in the name of God.

Secondly, this assertion of being "Chosen" is based on the Torah (Old Testament, Deuteronomy 7:6). The fact that the OT is fiction is obvious from Book 1, Page 1. See: "The Forgery of the Old Testament" by Joseph McCabe. The earth is not 6000 years old, etc. Higher criticism showed that the OT was weaved together from four source documents. The scribes, who imagined a mass murderer Moses (who was so black, the African Pharaoh assumed he was his grandson for decades) as their prophet were themselves probably mentally deranged African criminals.

2. More than ½ of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means. Under the delusion they are Go's Chosen, Judaists lose morals became crooks and criminals at a much higher rate. Judaists bribe and blackmail politicians in USA and EU to get Israel favorite treatment and destroy the goyim through alienism and flood it with 3rd world aliens. The bribed politicians pay them back millions or even billions in grants and contracts and other favors, such as FCC licenses, protection from criminal prosecution, etc. For example, Jewish billionaire George Soros (Schwartz) made money in insider trading. Most Judaists succeed due to nepotism as they hire each other in top positions, to monopolize and control and to goyim out. Eg. Elena Kagan who never tried a case was suddenly appointed to the Supreme Court.

They also control the Nobel Committee, given the fact that many Judaists who got nobel prizes got them for no great discovery or invention! See details here:

http://www.maya12-21-2012.com/2012forum/index.php?topic=14039.0

In summary, Judaism is a mentally deranged criminal cult and the Judaists are a modern criminal gang that controls all 3 branches of our govt., media and academia and is using its criminally obtained power to bolster their mythical homeland, Israel, and keeping it pure, while destroying white goyim thru 3rd world immigration and liberalism in order to rule them using the divide and conquer strategy.

Jim , September 7, 2015 at 2:54 pm GMT
It is completely obvious to anyone who has had even a slight acquaintance with Ashkenazi Jews that they average high intelligence. This impression is not only supported by the psychometric data showing an average Ashkenazi IQ of 112 but also by the astounding record of extraordinarily high levels of achievement in intellectually demanding fields.

The other day I quickly wrote down a list of about 30 or so of the most prominent chess players since the latter part of the nineteenth century that I had heard of and then researched how many of them were Ashkenazi Jews. It turned out that 49% of them were Ashkenazi Jews. Looking at the percentage of Nobel Prize winners, Fields Medalists etc. that are Ashkenazi Jews produces similar astonishing results.

Someone who can believe that the extraordinary level of Ashkenazi intellectual achievement has nothing to do with genetics can believe anything. The denial of a genetic involvement in high Ashkenazi intellectual achievement illustrates the remarkable power of ideology to cause people to pretend to believe the most preposterous nonsense.

The intelligence of non-Ashkenazi Jews while nowhere near Ashkenazi levels is still probably above the world average except for the Falasha. The IQ of the Mizrahi Jews I believe is somewhere in the low 90′s which while well below average IQ's in most of Europe is substantially above the average IQ of most Arab populations.

It should be noted that the genetics of Ashkenazi Jews is substantially different from the genetics of non-Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically about 60% European (nearly all Mediterranean European) and 40% Middle Eastern.

Jim , September 7, 2015 at 3:21 pm GMT
No doubt Jews are much more ethnocentric than Europeans in general. However in regard to ethnocentrism Jews may well be nearer the world average than say Northwest Europeans who appear unusually low in ethnocentrism.

Of the various unsavory Jews mentioned in this article it is clear that they are all of high intelligence.

It is perfectly true that Jewish intellectual achievements have little connection with the Talmud or other aspects of traditional Jewish culture. But that fact itself shows the weakness of cultural explanations of Jewish achievement. Chess for example was absent from traditional Jewish culture but when Ashkenazi Jews began to take up the game in the latter part of the nineteenth century it took only for a few decades for them to become highly dominant in international competition despite the fact that the game came from gentile culture.

The intellectual superiority of Ashkenazi Jews is obvious. Hopefully a study of Jewish genetics will lead to substantial advances in the understanding of human intelligence.

Tom_R , September 7, 2015 at 3:51 pm GMT
@Jim

JUDAISTS -- MENTALLY RETARDED OR MENTALLY ILL?

If you think the "Jews" are so intelligent, then how come they read the Torah (OT 1-5) and not realize that it is a forgery, a piece of fiction and that Abraham and Moses could not have existed?

The Torah (OT 1-5) is a "forgery" (See: McCabe) and "spurious" (–Thomas Paine). That is obvious from book 1, page 1. The Earth is not 6000 years old. The universe is not standing on a "firmament." Cultures (unknown to the scribes) flourished much before. Written records and archeological evidence using carbon dating show man's presence tens of thousands of years ago, probably over a 100,000 years ago. A million people cannot live in a vast desert (without water or food) in a hostile nation for 40 years -- and leave no trace.

Moshe (an Egyptian, therefore African and Negro) never existed. His story is copied from the older African myth of Mises. Exile and Exodus never happened. For eg., as stated in "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" (by Prof. Ze'ev Herzog of the Dept. of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University):

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel ."

See:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_(Harpers) .htm

Also at: http://www.yorku.ca/dcarveth/false_testament

Moshe could not have parted the Red Sea, not only because it violates the laws of physics, and there was no Moses, but because there was no Red Sea to cross, since Egypt and Israel have a common land border!

So Judaists who believes that this mythical black mass murderer Moshe is their "prophet", and are children of a pimp called Abraham, are they mentally retarded or mentally ill?

Biff , September 7, 2015 at 3:52 pm GMT

What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?

Thank goodness Max Blumenthal didn't take that route. He could've easily, but change is in the air.

Realist , September 7, 2015 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Mark Green

The advantage of intelligence many Jews have is overshadowed by the lack of integrity on the part of many.

Realist , September 7, 2015 at 4:28 pm GMT
@Tom_R

"More than ½ of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means. Under the delusion they are Go's Chosen, Judaists lose morals became crooks and criminals at a much higher rate. Judaists bribe and blackmail politicians in USA and EU to get Israel favorite treatment and destroy the goyim through alienism and flood it with 3rd world aliens."

How smart are the goyim that allow it?

Epaminondas , September 7, 2015 at 4:32 pm GMT
@Realist

There is a peculiar trait among Semitic peoples to treat members of other ethnic or religious groups with a different set of ethics. Gentiles are slow to understand this, as their Christian universalism forbids them to engage in such activities.

Jim , September 7, 2015 at 4:45 pm GMT
@Mark Green

It's not a question of liking Jews or being "anti-Semitic". Quite aside from sentimental considerations along these lines it is perfectly obvious that Ashkenazi Jews have an exceptionally high average IQ. Saying this is just to recognize objective reality.

Ashkenazi Jews are no doubt more ethnocentric than most other white Americans or Northwest Europeans but in this regard it may be the latter who are more exceptional in having a low degree of ethnocentrism.

Northwest Europeans have often been described as having a "guilt" culture as opposed to a "shame" culture which is more common in the rest of the world outside Europe. I wonder to what extent traditional Jewish culture is best described as a "guilt" vs. "shame" culture.

Ashkenazi Jews are very different genetically from non-Ashkenazi Jews. Most US Jews are Ashkenazi so statements about Jews in the US are generally about Ashkenazi Jews. Such statements often do not apply much to Oriental Jews.

Jim , September 7, 2015 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Realist

"More than 1/2 of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means."

Utter nonsense.

Sonic , September 7, 2015 at 5:42 pm GMT
@Jim

There is a definitive correlation between corruption/criminality and worldly success. At an individual level, those whose morals are weak tend to be more willing to take risks or do the kinds of work that others would not dare touch or find reprehensibly. Yet, the end result would be greater worldly accomplishment and success. This does not apply to everyone, but it is an undeniable reality. At the macro-level, empires don't become empires without having bad laundry (so to speak). Might makes right as the saying goes. America as a superpower today would not be in the position it is in without the shedding of so much blood and without so many transgressions and criminal actions. So my point here is that sometimes, success and accomplishment correlates with corruption and transgression. Also, compare and contrast Jewish success and accomplishment in Germany prior to World War 1 and after World War 2. After the horror of those events, I think many Jewish communities may have altered their relationship with non-Jews and as a result, believe that they have the right to lie, fool, and transgress against gentile nations that are going to be hostile towards them no matter what.

The real accomplishment is one's place in the Hereafter. That was the message that the Jews used to carry to the nations of the earth. Now, it is the Muslims that carry that message.

Sonic , September 7, 2015 at 5:50 pm GMT
@Jim

Jim – your perspective here is wrong. It is culture and environment and the type of beliefs and mentality a person, family, or community have. A set of variable factors some of which can be controlled and some of which cannot, that result in what we then observe. This is an age-old debate within the field of genetics nurture vs. nature. But what you are describing above is nurture the mentality one has or the mentality one is raised by.

Similar arguments can be put forth regarding the rise and fall of whole nations. Some nations and cultures start off with better resources that allow them to conquer others and thus, "achieve" more. Think of the military advantages Europe had over Asia and Africa that allowed for the centuries of colonialism. Prior to that, the geography and natural resources of Europe gave it many advantages over those lands and peoples that they eventually conquered. On top of that, Europe developed a manifest destiny mindset (among other ideologies) which justified its actions. For some, it may have been humanitarian and for others in Europe, it may have been destructive. Either way, the end result of what they did was on account of environmental and cultural factors that fall into the realm of "nurture" rather than "nature". Nature here being a reference to genetics and race and so forth as opposed to environmental advantages like better food, water, and shelter.

Again, real success and accomplishment is for the Hereafter. The Jews were once entrusted to lead mankind with this message but they lost it, and so the Muslims (including members of every Jewish tribe – even the Ashkenazis that revert to Islam) now carry it forth.

Art , September 7, 2015 at 6:04 pm GMT
What marks a Jew is not his native inelegance but his aggression. The Jew culture is intellectually aggressive. Human culture is about the use of words – the capacity to use words separates us from our fellow species. Jews are masters at aggressively manipulating words.

The Jew culture teaches its children to be intellectually aggressive – it teaches its children to be argumentative and intellectually combative – it teaches its children to aggressively win through the use of words at all costs short of jail. In essence they win by fooling people, by misleading them with words.

In Western culture it is said "that the truth will set you free" – that truth is the highest value – truth settles disputes, truth rules -- whereas in Jew culture it is said that "misleading words will gain you money and power."

There is another most important element in Jew culture – it is that they do this word manipulation together as a tribe. That they dishonestly act together as one. Zionism exemplifies Jew culture.

rabbitbait , September 7, 2015 at 6:13 pm GMT
The "fact" that Jews are claimed to have an average IQ that is ten points higher than other whites is rather spurious. "Other whites"includes people like inbred West Virginia Coal miners, less intelligent southern and eastern Europeans as well as all those somewhat dim witted white Evangelicals.

If one were to claim that Jews have IQs that are ten points higher than the average Episcopalian or Presbyterian, that would be an entirely different matter altogether. I have heard that there is some actively censored data hanging around out there that claims that the difference between Jews and white gentiles virtually disappears when Jews are pitted against either active or passive members of these two most prosperous and highest status of the larger Protestant sects. The same drastic narrowing of test scores would probably happen if Jews were measured against the less numerous, but just as well off, Congregationalists or Quakers.

Drapetomaniac , September 7, 2015 at 6:55 pm GMT
@Jim

Jews are high function at both ends of the cognitive spectrum: subjective and objective. One form of cognition primarily manipulates people, often considering them just objects, while the other is generally focused on manipulating things with much less interest in people.

Mentalism and Mechanism, the twin modes of human cognition

by Christopher Badcock.

http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/MentalismCB.html

Sam Shama , September 7, 2015 at 6:55 pm GMT
@rabbitbait

I have heard that there is some actively censored data hanging around out there that claims that the difference between Jews and white gentiles virtually disappears when Jews are pitted against either active or passive members of these two most prosperous and highest status of the larger Protestant sects.

I would not doubt this at all. In fact there are groups globally that equal or exceed the average IQ levels of Ashkenazi Jews. For example Indian Brahmins measure around 110-115, as do North Europeans. One expects in fact, that with reductions in pathogenic loads, improved nutrition etc. global IQ levels to converge over time. In the end, what matter most for achievement are grit and efficiency.

Ronald Thomas West , Website September 7, 2015 at 7:25 pm GMT
The article is patent horse shit. Israeli neocons wouldn't behave nearly so aggressively without the much larger and more powerful American Christian Zionist population that has Israel's back.

http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/09/06/fall-message/

^ The preponderance of power behind the maniacal behaviors seen in Bibi Netanyahu is not Jewish, it's the American Christian Right

Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] , September 7, 2015 at 9:07 pm GMT
This is a very confused piece because it doesn't clearly define the meaning of Jewish Supremacism.

I would argue there is such a thing called Jewish Supremacism -- though Jews will never call it that and most people are afraid to call it that -- , and we should approach it like white supremacism or supremacism of any kind. It is what allows Jews to act as if they're beyond the law or the norms of humanity.

The problem is that the part and parcel of Jewish Supremacism is that we cannot call it 'Jewish Supremacism'. And this is the difference between Jewish Supremacism and White Supremacism. During the heyday of White Supremacism, whites were saying they are indeed the best. In contrast, Jewish Supremacists pretend to be egalitarians at war with all kinds of supremacism, especially the white, Muslim, Russian, and Chinese kind. Indeed, paradoxically, one of the hallmarks of Jewish Supremacism is we must never ever notice that Jews are supremacist. It's kind of like the phenomenon of Jewish power/influence. Jews have so much of it(and proud of it), but we better not notice it. If you do notice, as Rick Sanchez did, you get in big trouble. Jews have the supremacist power over us all but use that power to insist that they are all about egalitarianism and that anyone who says otherwise is an evil 'antisemite' who needs to be destroyed. Jews have great power, wealth, and influence but still act like Holocaust survivors who just walked out of the Nazi Death Camps. It is because Jewish Supremacism is so well-hidden and masked that it is so dangerous.

Nazis were scum but at least they were honest scum. They said WE ARE THE BEST, SO KISS OUR ASS WHILE WE KICK YOUR BUTT. In contrast, Jews kick our butt and make us kiss their ass but also force us to believe that they are healing our souls with their commitment to egalitarianism and universal conscience. Jewish Supremacism is a silent/invisible supremacism. That is why it's dangerous. We are made to behave in accordance to the conviction that Jews are indeed better than us and more deserving than us BUT also made to see Jews as an eternally helpless people who wouldn't survive unless we took special care of them. But this passive-aggressive form of superiority is found in Christianity itself. The mythic Jesus claimed to be the Son of God but also lived and died as the most helpless man. We are supposed to worship His supreme power but also weep for His most helpless self that suffered oh so very much like in Gibson's PASSION where Romans whup Him real good.

Anyway, Petras confuses the issue because he's not clear on the meaning of superiority. He mentions a bunch of bad Jews who did loathsome things. But genius/brilliance/wit/smarts can be in the service of bad stuff as well as good stuff.
So, the fact that many Jews were involved in financial crimes doesn't disprove the notion that Jews are superior in certain areas. Indeed, a smart crook is more likely to rob with a briefcase than with a gun. He may be morally inferior but still has proven his intellectual superiority. I find the Jordan Belfort character of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET loathsome, but we have to admit a dummy couldn't have done what he did. So, even though he was a crook, his example did demonstrate Jewish superiority in brain power. And this goes for other Wall Street Jewish crooks. Their wickedness doesn't disprove Jewish superiority in the brainy fields.

It's like blacks are physically stronger and superior in athletics. Blacks can use this advantage for good things or bad things. A strong black fireman might run out of the building with 3 children. But a nasty black criminal might use his strength to invade a home, beat up a white boy, rape his wife, and act like a gorilla. He would have done wrong, but his use of force would still have demonstrated the physical advantage of the Negro over whites.
Any talent or skill can be used for good or bad. That so many Jews are brainy crooks and so many blacks are brutish crooks means that Jews have the advantage in mental power and blacks have the advantage in muscle power.

Of course, being superior in mind doesn't mean one is good in morality. So many smart people have been lying, manipulative, lowdown vermin. And there have been plenty of Jewish sons-of-bitches. But to the extent that such Jewish crooks could outwit and out-think others is proof of Jewish superiority in brain power.

"Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society."

But why did secularized Jews achieve more than other people who were also secularized(from Christianity, Islam, or whatever) at the same time? I agree that the great modern achievements of Jews in the modern era had to do with Emancipation and secularization, but non-Jews had the same opportunities as the Jews did, in some cases more as they faced less overt discrimination and even were favored by affirmative action in places in Hungary.

If secularization does such wonders for any people, why did Jews disproportionally outperform other groups? In both Hungary and Germany, the small Jewish minority gained tremendous power and influence even though Hungarians and Germans had the same access to secularization and modernity. Of course, there were notable non-Jewish artists, scientists, writers, and etc. in every field, and Jews hardly originated many of these disciplines. But the fact that Jews did better in them means that Jews might have a genetic advantage when it comes to intelligence.
It's like this. For most of black existence, they ran around chucking spears at hippos and beating the bongo drum and hollering ugabuga. Blacks gained athletic domination in the West when they took up sports like basketball, football, boxing, and etc. So, are we to assume that blackness has no special advantage in sports? Should we say black success in sports owes only to black participation in western sports? But non-blacks also participated in western sports like boxing, track, basketball, and etc. So, why didn't they do as well as blacks?
So, doesn't it make sense to say that, even prior to black participation in sports, something about the evolution of blackness in the Dark Continent made blacks more better at sports? It wasn't the sports that made blacks so good. They were so good at sports because their evolution had made them strong and fast long before they dribbled the first basketball or put on the first boxing gloves.

Same thing could be true of Jews. While one could argue that Judaism did hold Jews back from participating in secular sciences, its emphasis on memory, argument, discussion, contemplation, meditation of profound questions as mind-puzzles, and etc. might have helped Jews to select the smarter Jews and favor them for breeding with the daughters of smart Jewish businessmen. Gregory Harpender came up with such theory. Something can be useless in practical terms but still be useful in identifying the smart and favoring him for breeding.
Take chess or some kind of mind-game. It has no value in finding the cure for cancer, sending a man to the moon, splitting the atom, and etc. But a game of chess involves tremendous skills of reason, logic, memory, foresight, and such. So, if a culture were to use chess to identify members who are better at it and then favored such kids for having more kids, then the culture will grow smarter. And who can deny that Judaism was intellectually vigorous even if, from the perspective of modern society, useless in technological terms. You can't learn engineering or medicine by reading the Torah and Talmud. But you can learn to use your mind and probe into profound questions of life and meaning, and through such debate, the culture of intelligence can be fostered, and the identified brainiacs can be matched to have babies with the daughters of smart businessmen, and over time, the Tribe grows more intelligent.

"Among Jewish American Nobel 'Peaceniks' is Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the 'template for regime change' by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chilean President Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state terror; and who supported Indonesia's destruction of East Timor!"

Kissinger is a shady character, but it came with the territory of dealing in foreign policy, always a gangster enterprise for all nations. I mean the great Bismarck played dirty too.

4 million dead in Vietnam War? Wasn't it 2 million? Also, what was Kissinger supposed to do? South Vietnam was an ally being threatened by the communist north during the Cold War. It was difficult for US to hold the trust of its allies by letting Vietnam fall to communism. It was a dirty war where every side fought nasty and hard and did terrible things.

As for Chile, wasn't Pinochet still better than the commie Allende who would have destroyed the economy? Pinochet did revive the economy. He even graciously stepped aside and restored democracy. So what if he killed a bunch of commies? Commies love violence and wherever they took power, used even more ruthless violence against dissidents.
As for what happened in East Timor, Indonesia was an ally of the US, and during the Cold War, US tolerated its sons of bitches and the USSR tolerated its sons of bitches.
Kissinger was a Cold Warrior and strategist. It is wrong to see his actions through overly moralistic eyes. If indeed Kissinger should be condemned for working with tyrants, how come there is no complaint about Kissinger's working behind the scenes to bring about Nixon-Mao meeting? Mao killed millions of Chiners and then ruined Chinese culture by setting Red Guards amok to smash things. But the very people who bitch about Kissinger's support of Pinochet -- who killed a few 1000s -- see no problem with Kissinger helping Nixon come to an understanding with Mao the mass killer of tens of millions. I don't blame Kissinger for the Mao-Nixon affair. He was a global strategist, and he knew he had to play with the cards dealt to him.

At any rate, he was far preferable to Neocon lunatics. Kissinger understood foreign policy as a dirty affair and did what he had to do. He was a realist and pragmatist.
And such a policy is better for the US than the Neocon one that aggressively triggers unnecessary wars for Jewish interest.
Whether one agrees with Kissinger's decisions or not, he was acting in terms of 'necessary wars and conflicts' that simply couldn't be avoided. During the Cold War when US allies were under attack from global communists, US really had no choice but to stick up for the anti-communists.

As for Israel, the problem is Zionists keep thinking beyond their borders and get US involved in the mess. Supremacism or no supremacism, the problem of Israel-Palestine is due to the clash of nationalisms. It's like Yugoslavia after the end of communism. The problem wasn't supremacism. Serbs didn't think they were racially superior to Croatians didn't think they were racially superior to Bosnian Muslims didn't think they were racially superior to Serbians who didn't think they were racially superior to Kosovo Albanians. But each people had their own vision of national identity and territory. There was serious disagreement about borders, and that caused the problem.

Now, it is true that Israel does have racial supremacists who say 'Goyim should serve us like cattle', but even if not a single Jew thought that way in Israel-Palestine, the problem there would be almost identical. Israel was founded by imperialism. Also, Jews didn't finish the job. Had they expelled all Palestinians from what were to become Israel, they would have done better for themselves(thought not for Palestinians, of course). It is proof that diversity is problematic, especially if it involves people who've come to be historically at odds with one another.

Even if Jews were to drop every vestige of supremacism in Israel/Palestine, the problem will not go away since Palestinians have a different vision of Palestine.
It's like South Africa. The end of Apartheid didn't end the problem of race. If anything, things have gotten worse because blacks have a different vision of what South Africa should be, with or without Apartheid.

Realist , September 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm GMT
@Art

The thumpers have power when they support Zionist goals .other wise never.

The Jews let the Christians be their minions.

geokat62 , September 7, 2015 at 9:59 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

The preponderance of power behind the maniacal behaviors seen in Bibi Netanyahu is not Jewish, it's the American Christian Right.

I guess the following members of the Israel Lobby – American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, the Zionist Organization of America, the Israel Policy Forum, the American Jewish Committee, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Americans for a Safe Israel, American Friends of Likud, Mercaz-USA, Hadassah, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations – can just close up shop and go home.

Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] , September 7, 2015 at 10:06 pm GMT
@Joe Franklin

"Judaism is not a religion, nor is it a racial category. Judaism is a group survival strategy."

But how is it a survival strategy? It cannot be understood apart from its concept of religion and race. Judaism has been a successful survival strategy because it fused spirituality with biology. Spirituality alone tends to be too abstract and solipsistic. Buddhism cannot help any tribal group to survive. And now we see Christianity failing as well.
As for pure tribalism, it is too petty, tooth-and-claw, gansterist, and/or animalist. Humans want something more from life than acting like pack animals. They want the vision of their own community to be something more than 'us versus them, F you!'

Judaism combined a concept of the universe under the power of the one and only God with the biology of a 'special people'. Jews pulled out their puds and said they have a special link to the Lord of All that was, is, and will be. In some ways, it was the ultimate chutzpah. Imagine someone yanking out his penis and saying it is blessed by God. So, what came out of the Jewish balls gained spiritual meaning. And this ballsian view of things was furthermore merged with the idea that a Jewish womb/vagina was special for creating authentic Jewish kids. So, Jewish guys were made to feel special for having special balls/puds that created special Jewish kids, and Jewish girls were made to feel special for having special vaginas that pushed out special Jewish kids. So, religion and race were combined. So, the 'survival strategy' aspect of Jewishness cannot be disassociated from the concepts of race and religion.

"The Jewish group survival strategy has changed over the centuries, based on circumstances. The 20th and 21th century Jewish group survival strategy is class supremacy. Early 20th century saw the rise of Jewish bolshevism in the form of proletarian class supremacy."

But was proletarianism a form of 'class supremacy' or class equality? Proles represented most people: the working folks. And communism said the economy belongs to all those who work than to the small elites who own the industries. Communists attacked capitalism as a form of class supremacism where the ruling bourgeoisie had most of everything.

To some extent, communism reflects Jewish thinking. The notable thing about much of Jewish culture–though not all–is the extent to which the emphasis is placed on 'ordinary people' than on 'great men'.
Most histories are histories of great gods, kings, heroes, and etc.
In contrast, many of the most important figures in Judaism are not 'great men' types. They are ordinary people like you and me. And even a great figure like Moses abandoned his privileges as a member of the Egyptian elite to become one of the Jews and to lead the Jews to their promised land. Not as hero or prince or king but merely as a man with a special calling from God.

This aspect of Judaism may have been good as a survival strategy since it made every Jew, however lowly, feel special and invested in preserving the Jewish tradition that informed him of his special place in the universe. One didn't have to be a king, prince, or whatever to matter. One could be a humble shepherd and still be the favored of God and have meaning in life. So, even when Jewish political leaders crumbled and fell, the Jewish people continued to feel special and blessed, even in exile.
But among cultures where all the glory was concentrated among the kings and elites, when they fell, the entire culture fell and vanished with the demise of the elites since the people merely counted as obedient sheep who carried out orders.

Another thing about Jewish communists. It's hard to say to what extent they were working as communists or as Jews. Also, even if they sincerely acted as communists on the conscious level, who knows what was really driving them in their subconscious?
Many Third World communists were actually driven by nationalism and adopted communism as the best instrument for liberation. Even if they did believe in communism, their nationalism actually meant more, and in time, the communist elements grew weaker while the sense of nationalism remained.

It could be that many Jews were driven to communism as a reaction to anti-Jewishness and also to Jewish capitalism(since it seemed to benefit only a handful of Jews while so many went poor and hungry, especially in a place like Russia).
At any rate, I'd wager that most Jewish communists were not consciously using communism as a Survival Strategy for Jews. Subconsciously, it could have been part of what they were doing, but we can't be sure. Subconsciously, it's possible that even Jews who rejected Jewishness were feeling sort of Jewish and different from others. A kind of implicit Jewishness that finally resurfaced with the ebbing of the ideological dogma of communism. Mere creeds don't last long. Ideas come and go. What tends to last is identity, historical sense, and territory if they are preserved.

People generally want to believe in the righteousness of their cause and don't wanna believe that they adopted some cause out of reasons of vendetta or self-interest.

For example, a lot of anti-Israel rhetoric on the Alt Right is filled with moral outrage, but in most cases, it has nothing to do with genuine sympathy for Palestinians. It is a survival strategy for white people that seeks to expose and undermine Jewish power wherever it can be found because it is seen as the main enemy of the white race.

If Jews didn't cause such trouble for Jews, who in the Alt Right would give a crap about what is being done to Palestinians?
Turks don't rule the West, so Alt Right doesn't care about all the Turkish violence against the Kurdish population.

KA , September 7, 2015 at 10:45 pm GMT
@Sonic

Dear Sonic,please don't create a straw man argument here . This is not about islam's golden past or the present s ary possibility of the demise of Christianity . It is about the future of a pluralistic secular egalitarian society free from the the vile machinations of the Zionism.

Don't generate this kind of discussion. It is nothing but diversion and irrelevant.

If you are a Muslim,you should learn from the 5 th column Zionist . It has destroyed Protestant religion. Zionism is inserting itself in the frightened psyche of corrupt Saudi . It can destroy Islam also.
Already in India ,Zionism has started portraying itself as a the ancient monolithic cousin of the polytheist Hindusim This is the starting point of the Zionist- both are ancient,both gave birth to other religions and both " don't force conversion" and have high IQ.and surrounded by most fanatic,fundamentalist and anti modern people. Hindu counterpart in return has added that no Jews were ever persecuted in India! What a match ! Just some 80 yrs ago Hindu fanatics RSS was praising Naxi and Hitler and demonizing Jews ,calling themselves Aryan around the same time when Zionist were cavorting with Hitler,Mussolini abd some other dark forces.

helena , September 8, 2015 at 6:51 am GMT
@Jim

Jim, there are no non-jewish Ashkenazi and it is accepted genetics that Ashkenazi are part European. Thus the correct labelling is Ashkenazi European as opposed to other Jewish European, or European. It is through labelling that various myths are proliferated. Using the term Ashkenazi European rather than Ashkenazi Jewish immediately brings to social consciousness where Ashkenazi derive from and how perhaps they inherited such high IQ.

Svigor , September 8, 2015 at 11:55 am GMT

Anyway, Petras confuses the issue because he's not clear on the meaning of superiority. He mentions a bunch of bad Jews who did loathsome things. But genius/brilliance/wit/smarts can be in the service of bad stuff as well as good stuff.
So, the fact that many Jews were involved in financial crimes doesn't disprove the notion that Jews are superior in certain areas.

"Ben is a great man."

"Yeah, great at gettin' us into trouble."

... ... ...

Anonymous Disclaimer , September 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm GMT
Just a couple thoughts. Success for Jews has come within larger Christian, high-trust societies. Being around a lot of Jews in my life, both successful and not successful, I have come to believe that their number one asset for accomplishment is their high energy, indefatigable nature. They're neurotic and inquisitive and spend a lot of time reading and mulling over things. This starts at a young age. And without the neurotic inquisitiveness, which is a product of high energy, they wouldn't test high on IQ tests and go on to become top chess players and disproportionate in the Ivy League, Nobel Prizes, etc. IQ is developed, but it requires someone have a high energy, inquisitive nature or a tiger parent pushing them in study.
Santoculto , September 8, 2015 at 3:54 pm GMT
@Svigor

Personality type and intrinsical motivation have huge impact on achievement potential as well very good circumstances,

Jim , September 8, 2015 at 5:30 pm GMT
@helena

I think Cochran is probably right that high Ashkenazi intelligence is the result of selection in Europe for high IQ resulting from occupational specialization. Cochran has also stated that Ashkenazi Jews in Europe have always been an almost exclusively urban population. All over the world urban populations have higher IQ's than surrounding rural populations. So in urban environments there is more selection pressure for higher IQ's.

So Jews in European history lived in an urban environment with generally high selection for intelligence and in addition occupational specialization created additional selection for high intelligence. An additional factor may have been that lower IQ Jews may have been more likely to assimilate into the general gentile population. Surviving as a Jew in the midst of a frequently hostile gentile population may have required high intelligence.

Most likely the alleles underlying high Ashkenazi intelligence are not unique to this population but have higher frequency there because of past selective forces. Under modern conditions selection for high intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews has probably lessened.

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.

WorkingClass , September 9, 2015 at 3:13 am GMT
@Santoculto

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

I honestly don't know how many Christian Zionists there are in the U.S. But it's a ton and they have a voice in D.C. According to polls, a majority of American Jews side with Obama over Bibi on the Iran deal. These are examples of Zionists who are not Jews and Jews who are not Zionists. Zionism is a dangerous ideology. Judaism is an ancient religion. They overlap but they are not at all the same thing.

Deduction , September 11, 2015 at 2:32 pm GMT
@Sonic

I have heard that there is some actively censored data hanging around out there that claims that the difference between Jews and white gentiles virtually disappears when Jews are pitted against either active or passive members of these two most prosperous and highest status of the larger Protestant sects.

Yes, there's nothing special about high IQ Jews. They just have high IQs. Other groups, like the British upper-middle class also have high IQs that's what happens when you have a degree of group inbreeding and strong selective pressures for intelligence.

sure thing , September 11, 2015 at 8:55 pm GMT
Don't know where my earlier comment went..but briefly:

Why hasn't all this ability produced a significant art of any kind?

Think of Islamic architecture – like the Alhambra (Spain) or the Taj Mahal (India.)

Think of Christian architecture – medieval gothic (Germany, France, Britain) or Roman Catholic (St Peters, Sistine chapel, numerous basilicas, churches..)

Art – Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Rubens ..,so many Christian artists..

The Islamic prohibition on reproducing human images did not prevent them from producing exquisite miniatures and distinctive geometric mathematically-perfect designs, often used to decorate everything from walls to rugs..to metal,.Syria and Morocco being especially well-known.

Music..classical European is heavily represented by German (Beethoven, Bach) and other European continental composers, all from the Christian tradition opera

Asia – look al the Buddhist and Confucius traditions in China, Korea and Japan and the distinctive architecture and art of those regions and cultures

Don't forget the Indian temples of the Hindus and the ornate stone carvings and painting that covers every surface..

In short, this perception of supremacy – for those Jews vthat have it – smacks a good deal more of civilizational insecurity than any real hubris.

I expect the confident ones don't need such contrived (and WASPy-biased) notions of group 'positive affirmation.'

[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 the