Softpanorama

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

War is Racket

News Antiamericanism as a Blowback to American Empire Recommended Links Predator state Syria civil war Civil war in Ukraine American Imperialism
New American Militarism Media-Military-Industrial Complex Anatol Leiven on American Messianism  American Exceptionalism Neoconservatism as a US version of Neoliberalism The Deep State  
All wars are bankers wars Casino Capitalism Corporatism Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization National Security State Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law Big Uncle is Watching You
Looting pays dividends to empire Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few Hypocrisy of British ruling elite Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime   Ayn Rand and her Objectivism Cult Globalization of Financial Flows
Fifth Column of Globalization Color revolutions Compradors NGOs as braintrust of color revolutions Diplomacy by deception Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism
EuroMaidan Victoria Nuland’s ‘Ukraine-gate’ The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan horse of neoliberalism Resurgence of ideology of neo-fascism Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law  The Grand Chessboard Machiavellism
Media domination strategy Media as a weapon of mass deception Developing Countries Hit Hardest by Brain Drain Republics are usually warlike and unscrupulous Politically Incorrect Political Humor American Imperialism Bookshelf Etc

The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics  are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations.

Ambrose Bierce

"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

Tacitus, Agricola

"When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die."

Jean-Paul Sartre, The Devil and the Good Lord

During the Vietnam War, one of the peace movement’s more sardonic slogans was: “War is good business. Invest your son" (Iraq War and Venture Capitalism by Norman Solomon )

ZNet

Printer Friendly Version

During the Vietnam War, one of the peace movement’s more sardonic slogans was: “War is good business. Invest your son.”

In recent years, some eminent pundits and top government officials have become brazen about praising war as a good investment.

Thomas Friedman’s 1999 book “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” summed up a key function of the USA’s high-tech arsenal. “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist,” he wrote. “McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

On Sept. 12, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke this way as he defended the U.S. military occupation of Iraq: “Since the United States and its coalition partners have invested a great deal of political capital, as well as financial resources, as well as the lives of our young men and women -- and we have a large force there now -- we can’t be expected to suddenly just step aside.” He was voicing the terminology and logic of a major capitalist investor.

And so, it was fitting when the New York Times reported days ago that Powell will soon be (in the words of the headline) “Taking a Role in Venture Capitalism.” The article explained that Powell is becoming a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a renowned Silicon Valley venture firm: “Mr. Powell acknowledged in an interview Tuesday that he has had any number of tempting job offers since leaving the State Department in January, but that the chance to work as a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins seemed too enticing to turn down.”

Writ large, the balance-sheet outlook of venture capitalism is being widely applied to the current war in Iraq -- even while defenders of the war are apt to indignantly reject any claim that it’s driven by zeal for massive profits. But let’s take the corporate firms at their own words.

Last year, I went through the latest annual reports from some American firms with Pentagon contracts. Those reports acknowledged, as a matter of fact, the basic corporate reliance on the warfare state.

Orbit International Corp., a small business making high-tech products for use by the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marines, had increased its net sales by nearly $2.4 million during the previous two years, to about $17.1 million -- and the war future was bright. “Looking ahead,” CEO Dennis Sunshine reported, “Orbit’s Electronics and Power Unit Segments expect to continue to benefit from the expanding military/defense and homeland security marketplace.” In its yearly report to federal regulators, Orbit International acknowledged: “We are heavily dependent upon military spending as a source of revenues and income. Accordingly, any substantial future reductions in overall military spending by the U.S. government could have a material adverse effect on our sales and earnings.”

A much larger corporation, Engineered Support Systems, Inc., had quadrupled its net revenues between 1999 and 2003, when they reached $572.7 million. For the report covering 2003, the firm’s top officers signed a statement that declared: “As we have always said, rapid deployment of our armed forces drives our business.” The company’s president, Jerry Potthoff, assured investors: “Our nation’s military is deployed in over 130 countries, so our products and personnel are deployed, as well. As long as America remains the world’s policeman, our products and services will help them complete their missions.”

The gigantic Northrop Grumman firm, while noting that its revenues totaled $26.2 billion in 2003, boasted: “In terms of the portfolio, Northrop Grumman is situated in the ‘sweet spot’ of U.S. defense and national security spending.”

War. How sweet it can be.

This article is adapted from Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to:


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Dec 18, 2018] Wall Street, Banks, and Angry Citizens by Nomi Prins

Notable quotes:
"... Nomi Prins is a ..."
"... . Her latest book is ..."
"... (Nation Books). Of her six other books, the most recent is ..."
"... . She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece. ..."
Dec 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
Wall Street, Banks, and Angry Citizens The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme Nomi Prins December 13, 2018 2,400 Words 16 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

As we head into 2019, leaving the chaos of this year behind, a major question remains unanswered when it comes to the state of Main Street, not just here but across the planet. If the global economy really is booming, as many politicians claim, why are leaders and their parties around the world continuing to get booted out of office in such a sweeping fashion?

One obvious answer: the post-Great Recession economic "recovery" was largely reserved for the few who could participate in the rising financial markets of those years, not the majority who continued to work longer hours, sometimes at multiple jobs, to stay afloat. In other words, the good times have left out so many people, like those struggling to keep even a few hundred dollars in their bank accounts to cover an emergency or the 80% of American workers who live paycheck to paycheck.

In today's global economy, financial security is increasingly the property of the 1%. No surprise, then, that, as a sense of economic instability continued to grow over the past decade, angst turned to anger, a transition that -- from the U.S. to the Philippines, Hungary to Brazil, Poland to Mexico -- has provoked a plethora of voter upheavals. In the process, a 1930s-style brew of rising nationalism and blaming the "other" -- whether that other was an immigrant, a religious group, a country, or the rest of the world -- emerged.

This phenomenon offered a series of Trumpian figures, including of course The Donald himself, an opening to ride a wave of "populism" to the heights of the political system. That the backgrounds and records of none of them -- whether you're talking about Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte, or Jair Bolsonaro (among others) -- reflected the daily concerns of the "common people," as the classic definition of populism might have it, hardly mattered. Even a billionaire could, it turned out, exploit economic insecurity effectively and use it to rise to ultimate power.

Ironically, as that American master at evoking the fears of apprentices everywhere showed, to assume the highest office in the land was only to begin a process of creating yet more fear and insecurity. Trump's trade wars, for instance, have typically infused the world with increased anxiety and distrust toward the U.S., even as they thwarted the ability of domestic business leaders and ordinary people to plan for the future. Meanwhile, just under the surface of the reputed good times, the damage to that future only intensified. In other words, the groundwork has already been laid for what could be a frightening transformation, both domestically and globally.

That Old Financial Crisis

To understand how we got here, let's take a step back. Only a decade ago, the world experienced a genuine global financial crisis, a meltdown of the first order. Economic growth ended; shrinking economies threatened to collapse; countless jobs were cut; homes were foreclosed upon and lives wrecked. For regular people, access to credit suddenly disappeared. No wonder fears rose. No wonder for so many a brighter tomorrow ceased to exist.

The details of just why the Great Recession happened have since been glossed over by time and partisan spin. This September, when the 10th anniversary of the collapse of the global financial services firm Lehman Brothers came around, major business news channels considered whether the world might be at risk of another such crisis. However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies. Why? Because such a crisis was so 2008 in a year in which, it was claimed, we were enjoying a first class economic high and edging toward the longest bull-market in Wall Street history. When it came to "boom versus gloom," boom won hands down.

None of that changed one thing, though: most people still feel left behind both in the U.S. and globally . Thanks to the massive accumulation of wealth by a 1% skilled at gaming the system, the roots of a crisis that didn't end with the end of the Great Recession have spread across the planet , while the dividing line between the "have-nots" and the "have-a-lots" only sharpened and widened.

Though the media hasn't been paying much attention to the resulting inequality, the statistics (when you see them) on that ever-widening wealth gap are mind-boggling. According to Inequality.org, for instance, those with at least $30 million in wealth globally had the fastest growth rate of any group between 2016 and 2017. The size of that club rose by 25.5% during those years, to 174,800 members. Or if you really want to grasp what's been happening, consider that, between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires whose combined wealth was greater than that of the world's poorest 50% fell from 380 to just eight . And by the way, despite claims by the president that every other country is screwing America, the U.S. leads the pack when it comes to the growth of inequality. As Inequality.org notes , it has "much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1% than any other country."

That, in part, is due to an institution many in the U.S. normally pay little attention to: the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. It helped spark that increase in wealth disparity domestically and globally by adopting a post-crisis monetary policy in which electronically fabricated money (via a program called quantitative easing, or QE) was offered to banks and corporations at significantly cheaper rates than to ordinary Americans.

Pumped into financial markets, that money sent stock prices soaring, which naturally ballooned the wealth of the small percentage of the population that actually owned stocks. According to economist Stephen Roach, considering the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, "It is hardly a stretch to conclude that QE exacerbated America's already severe income disparities."

Wall Street, Central Banks, and Everyday People

What has since taken place around the world seems right out of the 1930s. At that time, as the world was emerging from the Great Depression, a sense of broad economic security was slow to return. Instead, fascism and other forms of nationalism only gained steam as people turned on the usual cast of politicians, on other countries, and on each other. (If that sounds faintly Trumpian to you, it should.)

In our post-2008 era, people have witnessed trillions of dollars flowing into bank bailouts and other financial subsidies, not just from governments but from the world's major central banks. Theoretically, private banks, as a result, would have more money and pay less interest to get it. They would then lend that money to Main Street. Businesses, big and small, would tap into those funds and, in turn, produce real economic growth through expansion, hiring sprees, and wage increases. People would then have more dollars in their pockets and, feeling more financially secure, would spend that money driving the economy to new heights -- and all, of course, would then be well.

That fairy tale was pitched around the globe. In fact, cheap money also pushed debt to epic levels, while the share prices of banks rose, as did those of all sorts of other firms, to record-shattering heights.

Even in the U.S., however, where a magnificent recovery was supposed to have been in place for years, actual economic growth simply didn't materialize at the levels promised. At 2% per year , the average growth of the American gross domestic product over the past decade, for instance, has been half the average of 4% before the 2008 crisis. Similar numbers were repeated throughout the developed world and most emerging markets. In the meantime, total global debt hit $247 trillion in the first quarter of 2018. As the Institute of International Finance found, countries were, on average, borrowing about three dollars for every dollar of goods or services created.

Global Consequences

What the Fed (along with central banks from Europe to Japan) ignited, in fact, was a disproportionate rise in the stock and bond markets with the money they created. That capital sought higher and faster returns than could be achieved in crucial infrastructure or social strengthening projects like building roads, high-speed railways, hospitals, or schools.

What followed was anything but fair. As former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted four years ago, "It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority." And, of course, continuing to pour money into the highest levels of the private banking system was anything but a formula for walking that back.

Instead, as more citizens fell behind, a sense of disenfranchisement and bitterness with existing governments only grew. In the U.S., that meant Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, similar discontent was reflected in the June 2016 Brexit vote to leave the European Union (EU), which those who felt economically squeezed to death clearly meant as a slap at both the establishment domestically and EU leaders abroad.

Since then, multiple governments in the European Union, too, have shifted toward the populist right. In Germany, recent elections swung both right and left just six years after, in July 2012, European Central Bank (ECB) head Mario Draghi exuded optimism over the ability of such banks to protect the financial system, the Euro, and generally hold things together.

Like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB went on to manufacture money, adding another $3 trillion to its books that would be deployed to buy bonds from favored countries and companies. That artificial stimulus, too, only increased inequality within and between countries in Europe. Meanwhile, Brexit negotiations remain ruinously divisive, threatening to rip Great Britain apart.

Nor was such a story the captive of the North Atlantic. In Brazil, where left-wing president Dilma Rouseff was ousted from power in 2016, her successor Michel Temer oversaw plummeting economic growth and escalating unemployment. That, in turn, led to the election of that country's own Donald Trump, nationalistic far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro who won a striking 55.2% of the vote against a backdrop of popular discontent. In true Trumpian style, he is disposed against both the very idea of climate change and multilateral trade agreements.

In Mexico, dissatisfied voters similarly rejected the political known, but by swinging left for the first time in 70 years. New president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known by his initials AMLO, promised to put the needs of ordinary Mexicans first. However, he has the U.S. -- and the whims of Donald Trump and his "great wall" -- to contend with, which could hamper those efforts.

As AMLO took office on December 1st , the G20 summit of world leaders was unfolding in Argentina. There, amid a glittering backdrop of power and influence, the trade war between the U.S. and the world's rising superpower, China, came even more clearly into focus. While its president, Xi Jinping, having fully consolidated power amid a wave of Chinese nationalism, could become his country's longest serving leader, he faces an international landscape that would have amazed and befuddled Mao Zedong.

Though Trump declared his meeting with Xi a success because the two sides agreed on a 90-day tariff truce , his prompt appointment of an anti-Chinese hardliner, Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations, a tweet in which he referred to himself in superhero fashion as a " Tariff Man ," and news that the U.S. had requested that Canada arrest and extradite an executive of a key Chinese tech company, caused the Dow to take its fourth largest plunge in history and then fluctuate wildly as economic fears of a future "Great Something" rose. More uncertainty and distrust were the true product of that meeting.

In fact, we are now in a world whose key leaders, especially the president of the United States, remain willfully oblivious to its long-term problems, putting policies like deregulation, fake nationalist solutions, and profits for the already grotesquely wealthy ahead of the future lives of the mass of citizens. Consider the yellow-vest protests that have broken out in France, where protestors identifying with left and right political parties are calling for the resignation of neoliberal French President Emmanuel Macron. Many of them, from financially starved provincial towns, are angry that their purchasing power has dropped so low they can barely make ends meet .

Ultimately, what transcends geography and geopolitics is an underlying level of economic discontent sparked by twenty-first-century economics and a resulting Grand Canyon-sized global inequality gap that is still widening . Whether the protests go left or right, what continues to lie at the heart of the matter is the way failed policies and stop-gap measures put in place around the world are no longer working, not when it comes to the non-1% anyway. People from Washington to Paris , London to Beijing , increasingly grasp that their economic circumstances are not getting better and are not likely to in any presently imaginable future, given those now in power.

A Dangerous Recipe

The financial crisis of 2008 initially fostered a policy of bailing out banks with cheap money that went not into Main Street economies but into markets enriching the few. As a result, large numbers of people increasingly felt that they were being left behind and so turned against their leaders and sometimes each other as well.

This situation was then exploited by a set of self-appointed politicians of the people, including a billionaire TV personality who capitalized on an increasingly widespread fear of a future at risk. Their promises of economic prosperity were wrapped in populist platitudes, normally (but not always) of a right-wing sort. Lost in this shift away from previously dominant political parties and the systems that went with them was a true form of populism, which would genuinely put the needs of the majority of people over the elite few, build real things including infrastructure, foster organic wealth distribution, and stabilize economies above financial markets.

In the meantime, what we have is, of course, a recipe for an increasingly unstable and vicious world.

Nomi Prins is a TomDispatch regular . Her latest book is Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World (Nation Books). Of her six other books, the most recent is All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power . She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece.


WorkingClass , says: December 13, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT

However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies.

Tossed aside by whom? The corporate media of course. Fake news. Their ONLY agenda is the ongoing demonetization of Donald Trump.

Minus the obligatory Trump bashing this is a good piece. The beating heart of Neo Feudalism (against which we populists/nationalists/deplorables rebel) is debt money aka the FED. So what would you have us actually do about the banking cartel? Vote BETO? Check our privilege?

Godfree Roberts , says: December 14, 2018 at 12:35 am GMT
I suggest stepping back further than the GFC, to the halcyon days of Thatcher and Reagan and TINA.

That's when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today than then.

Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill is coming due.

Needless to say, the Chinese did the opposite and the current "China!" noise is designed to distract us from the dreadful destiny our faux democracy created for us.

But a country deserves the government it gets and we've always liked Elmer Gantry's style of self-confident bullshit.

Haxo Angmark , says: Website December 14, 2018 at 1:26 am GMT
(((Nomi Prins))) describes the problem accurately,

but (((she))) has the dynamics entirely wrong:

in order to buy consent for free-trade and open borders,

both aimed at liquidating the Whites and their nations,

the Judeo-globalist (((banksters))) and (((billionaires)))

have piled up hundreds of trillion$ in debt and fiat funnymoney. Naturally,

the lucre flows into the pockets of the already rich, while

the rest of us get the debt. In all honesty,

I fear for the Jews, both universalist Tikkun Olas like Nomi and the Zio-nationalists,

when the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses.

frosty zoom , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark dude..
Digital Samizdat , says: December 15, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT
I miss Mike Whitney. Where did he go? He hasn't posted anything here at Unz since June. He was just as good as Nomi on the finance/economic topics, but we didn't have to endure the constant anti-Trump virtue-signalling. It's a bit like being served castor oil along with your beef bourguignon: it spoils the whole effect.

Another thing I don't like about Nomi is how she fails to make the connection between hyper-financialization and falling median incomes in the West on the one hand, and open borders and 'free' trade on the other. Neoliberalism could succinctly be defined as the free movement of goods, capital and people across borders. Hence, there is nothing left-wing about hating borders–not if you by 'left-wing' you mean pro-workingclass .

Fidelios Automata , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
Remember, the Tea Party was a grassroots anti-banker movement. The media successfully convinced the rest of America that they were all racist fascist deplorables.
Endgame Napoleon , says: December 16, 2018 at 12:25 am GMT
Post-housing collapse, maybe, the Fed should have provided loans to Main Street merchants, unleashing more small-business energy, especially since so few Americans are starting businesses these days. But those loans, too, always need to be allocated to people with a reasonable chance to pay them back. The Fed gave the dough to the banks and the zombies, but in different ways, the small-business climate in the USA is almost as bad as the zombie-business climate.

Back in 2008, any small-business stimulus would have been complicated by the need for small fish to compete with the Goliath of big-box chains and on-every-corner franchise mills spawned by big corporations, which, in neither case, generate many quality, rent-covering jobs beyond a few management positions. In many cases, the owners of franchise businesses do not make much -- they can't pay much. And the recent attempt to stimulate small businesses via the LLC tax cut might be diluted by the undermining of small retail by volume sellers, like Amazon & Walmart -- behemoths that sell everything under the sun at cut rates, now speedily delivering to customers' doors.

Infrastructure spending would create long-term value and some quality, if temporary, jobs mostly for underemployed males, one of the groups unable to just work part-time or temp jobs at low wage levels, making up the difference between living expenses and inadequate pay with spousal income, child support checks or multiple monthly welfare streams from .gov and a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431. Rather than working multiple jobs, that is what many single-breadwinner parents do. They stay below the income limits for the .gov handouts, strategically, thereby keeping wages and job quality low for many women who lack access to unearned income streams unrelated to their employment.

College-educated Americans (and others) also face the problem of the many dual-earner parents, keeping two of the few decent-paying jobs with benefits under one roof. These are often not two rocket-scientist jobs, but jobs that many educated people could perform. They maintain those jobs despite tons of time off to accommodate their personal lives, letting $10-per-hour daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters and never-retiring grandparents do the work of raising their kids. The middle-class job pool would expand dramatically if they were just more interested in raising the kids they produce, but they put house size and multiple vacations first, with the liberals among them insincerely bemoaning the fact that 30 million Americans lack health insurance, while they are double-covered in their above-firing, family-friendly jobs.

Still, if infrastructure spending is used to build The Wall, everyone will at least be safer, welfare expenditures will go down and fewer welfare-assisted noncitizens will chase jobs, driving wages down for underemployed US citizens. Bridges require repair -- something that affects the safety of everyone in the country. The electrical grid and nuclear plants need to be fortified. Something needs to be done about cybersecurity, a type of invisible infrastructure that is more and more important.

We need US citizens to get these jobs, including the record number of working-aged US citizens out of the laborforce. Infrastructure spending should not be used to employ the citizens of other countries, like the 1.5 to 1.7 new legal immigrants admitted into the country each year, many of whom qualify for welfare and tax credits for US-born kids and boatloads of illegal immigrants.

tac , says: December 17, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT
The Western propaganda continues unabated. In the latest episode of #FakeNews France3 TV got caught broadcasting a fake Yellow Vests image–photoshoped by its disinformation division–to their viewers, and then blatantly lied about afterwards:

https://www.rt.com/news/446613-france3-macron-yellow-vests/

What are some of the biggest grievances of the protesters aka Yellow Vests?:

Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , says: December 17, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT
@Haxo Angmark

I fear for the Jews, both universalist Tikkun Olas like Nomi and the Zio-nationalists,

when the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses.

Haxo has to be hasbara of some sort trying to discredit Prins' article. That aside, I hope for major correction before we see a complete collapse of the U.S. and global economy which will result in complete social collapse. For no other reason than I live in a major East Coast city and am not prepared to forage for food.

Biff , says: December 17, 2018 at 6:21 am GMT
@Godfree Roberts

That's when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today than then.

Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill is coming due.

Is this the result of Ivy League schools pumping out more degrees in finance rather than science and engineering, or the cause?

Brian , says: December 17, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
Including Hungary and Viktor Orban in your piece demonstrates a lack of research and a definite lack of perspective. I discount the rest of what you babble on about as a result. Try doing some on-the-spot research. You might learn what really is going on. Start with the hundreds of YouTube tourist blogs. Then visit. Stop blindly regurgitating the narrow, usually distorted crap you find in the press. You may have a point but it appears to be a house of cards. To me at least. An expat enjoying my freedoms in Hungary.l
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website December 17, 2018 at 7:48 am GMT
Yeah, and what 'tomdispatch regular' Prins does is increase the sense of rage and helplessness by pointing out the degenerative process without offering any avenue to lance the boil and treat the infection. This only contributes to the resultant social problems she describes. Not necessarily smart.

Better had she pointed to some means of holding those responsible accountable, example given:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/10/12/a-breaking-point-in-geopolitical-torsion/

^ my modest contribution

jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
I'm old, mid seventies, studied economics in the sixties.
Among the many stupid things I did or thought in my life is that economics is what is expressed by 'economics is common sense made difficult'.
Maybe I had also the completely wrong idea about common sense, looking back, and looking around me now, it hardly seems to exist.
The figures about CO2 ppm can be explained in one sentence, yet mankind seems to be embarking on the most expensive experiment ever, the outcome of which will, my conviction, be that the only effect is back to barbarism, civilisation depends on cheap energy.

About financial crises, around 1880 there was a crash in Germany, Wild West around emission of shares was ended.
In 1929 USA financial regulations were way behind German, the great crash.
The USA, with GB, is the only country in the world where the central bank is not state owned.
Therefore derivatives were not regulated, the fairy tales about absolute minimum value were believed, as were before 1880 in Germany emission fairy tales.
We have one more problem central bank, ECB, in theory owned by the euro countries, in practice Draghi can do what he wants, as long as he stays within his statutes.

Anyone with some insight in the world economy sees that w're heading towards a gigantic crash, who is unable to see this can read Varoufakis.

Now how did we get into this mess ?
In my opinion quite simple: globalisation, that made the political power of the nation states disappear, EU of course also is globalisation.
Central bankers of the world monthly meet at BIS Basle, financially, economically, in my opinion, there the world is ruled.
What these central bankers think, I've no idea.
But that Dutch central bank director Klaas Knot does not care for Dutch interests, is more than clear.

There is one important and interesting thing about economies, economy defined as the finances of a country, the euro zone, the USA, politicians, and bankers, even central bankers, do not control economies.
A few aspects can be controlled, but not all of them at the same time.
So inconsistent decisions lead to unwanted, and/or unforeseen consequences.

The euro is a political experiment, the object was to force euro countries to become more or less economically the same.
It failed, southern euro countries differ economically as much now from northern as when the euro was introduced.

The only way out for France economically now I can see is the old devaluation recipe.
Alas, 'thanks' to the euro this is no longer possible.
So that, what is erronuously called elite, has maneuvred itself into a lose lose situation, do nothing, and France will have a second 1791, or remove the euro flag from the sinking EU ship.
In both cases, as far as I can see, end of EU.

Reason, common sense, never ruled the world.

jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT
@tac Quite simple, more and more French are running into financial difficulties.
Most of them of course do not understand why, but they're not interested in why, as the immigrants 'we want a better life'.
Since over ten years now, I'm retired, we live many months yearly in France.
Great country, compared to the Netherlands, more and more resembling LA.
We do not pay French income taxes, just property tax.
But the steady increase over the years of the cost of living in France we noticed quite well.
For the last two or three years it is clear to us that even our French neighbours are less affluent, our neighbouring houses all are second homes, owned by upper middle class, of course.
Complaints about the cost of the gardener, no parties with traiteurs any more.
A traiteur is someone who prepares expensive dishes for parties etc.
French complain, even in casual conversations, a restaurant owner 'Macron is right, nobody wants to work in France any more', someone else 'France is ill, we pay to much for social security'.
The real Buddy Ray , says: December 17, 2018 at 9:53 am GMT
Nomi doesn't even mention the impact a million and a half legal immigrants coming in each year has had on our supposed recovery. How can we trust what she says when she leaves out such pertinent information? In fact we could argue the only way we were able to recover after the Great Depression is because immigration had been cut.
Franz , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:10 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat

I miss Mike Whitney. Where did he go?

I second that, very much a whole lot.

Mike was possibly the only journalist who gave Trump a modicum of good advice when he mentioned bumping retirees pay instead of pretending corporate tax cuts will ever "trickle down" to the workers still on the job. Bullseye! I could use a raise.

Mike said $150 more per month would go directly for stuff retirees need, especially the ones right on the edge. Young plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on would have tons of work to do.

Cut corporate tax, on the other hand. and the buggers only send more work to China, sluice money to anti-worker NGOs, or sit on it all like Bill Gates.

I'd go one step further: Put a cork in the billions for Israel program and pay off all American student loans. Further still: Tax corporations that outsource work to pay every young worker $2500 monthly till America learns how to pay "middle class wages" again. Bezos at Amazon can get a special bill for the millions of worker-years he's stiffed and pay them US Marshall rates, backdated to their start date with interest.

I know, I know. Fascist economics is so boring. But we're near the centennial of the days when Benito Mussolini was the most respected and successful politician in Europe if not the world.

There was a reason for that.

[Dec 18, 2018] What Lies Behind the Malaise of the West by Pat Buchanan

Dec 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez , says: December 18, 2018 at 4:21 am GMT

The key problem of the USA is that neoliberalism ideology is now discredited (since 2008) and neoliberalism as the social system clearly entered the stage of decline. Trump and Brexit were the first Robin (as in "One robin doesn't make a spring" )

The key problem that probably will prolong the period of neoliberalism past its Shelf LIfe Expiration Date is that the alternative to it is still unclear. and probably will not emerge until the end of the age of "cheap oil" which might mean another 40-50 years. But the rise of far-right nationalism is a clear indication of people in various countries started reject neoliberal globalization (including the USA, GB and most of Europe.) Trump's "national neoliberalism" and Brexit are just another side of the same coin.

Economic rape of Russia and post Soviet republic in 1991-2000 as well as the communication revolution postponed the crisis of neoliberalism for a decade or so. Otherwise, it might well start around 2000 instead of 2008. Now G7 countries that adopted neoliberalism entered the phase of "secular stagnation" (as Summers called it) and probably will not be able to escape for it without some war-style mobilization or military coup d'état and introduction of command economics.

IMHO military remains one of the few realistic hopes to play the role of countervailing force for the financial oligarchy -- which owns that state under neoliberalism, So when we talk about the Depp State that created anti-Trump witch hunt it is not just intelligence agencies (although they assume active political role now and strive to be the kingmakers). This Wall street, military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies.

It will be interesting if establishment neoliberals will try to take revenge in 2020, as they clearly do not have any viable candidate right now (Biden is a sad joke). But they definitely can put Trump on the ropes in 2019 and sign of their intention to do so already emerged.

BTW the key problem of Trump survival is that Trump abandoned (or was forced to abandon) most of his key election promises to the electorate (with the only exception of tariffs for China, I think).

In this sense Trump behaved much like Obama did with his "Change and hope" bait and switch trick, and Nobel Peace Price. Nobel Peace Prize for the butcher of Libya and Syria, the godfather of ISIS, is rich.

Returning to Trump election-time promises, we can mention following (cited from Guardian, Aug 21, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics ):

During election campaign, his message was straightforwardly anti-globalization. He believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favor of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.

He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.

To globalization, Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the 1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.

Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long supported a neoliberal, pro-globalization strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarized between the pro- and anti-globalizers, an entirely new development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.

Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair, with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.

As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure. Trump's position represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalization ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalizers is inequality.

[Dec 17, 2018] Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of Russian made T34, patriotic soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart generals

Dec 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Parisian Guy, December 15, 2018 at 9:11 pm GMT

@apollonian

Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of Russian made T34, patriotic soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart generals.

The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth. That's a meme which has been propagated as soon as the USSR went down around 1990 (thus, there was no more powerful voice to contradict the lies).

Americans can't stand the truth: they did almost nothing, waiting comfortably for Europe to be completely devasted, then coming near the end to reap the bounty of the winner. This disgusting behavior had to be hidden by myths such as the truck/jeep meme.

The truth was known by everybody in Europe after the war. Of course the British gave more responsibility to UK for defeating Hitler, as Russians were doing for their side. But almost nobody thought that America was the one who defeated Hitler.

Then gradually, the American (hollywood) propaganda rewrote the history, and the American made myth became the believed truth. Alain Soral: "Marx ****s Hitler"

JLK , December 16, 2018 at 12:47 am GMT

@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

There is no doubt that Germans, particularly from certain regions of Germany, looked down upon Slavs.

I'm sure some Germans looked down on Poles, Ukrainians and Russians, like Americans who used to tell Polish jokes, but that's different from considering them racially inferior.

There were reasons to feel culturally superior. Germany was far wealthier and the people better educated than in Poland or Ukraine. Their houses were nicer, with indoor toilets, and their farms neater and better managed. The Red Army soldiers were astounded by how well Germans lived when they finally reached German soil.

There has to be some explanation for why Russian deserters who volunteered for German forces were hardly used.

They probably didn't trust Vlasov and his crew until they were forced to out of desperation. He ended up turning on them anyway, proving it was a bad idea.

As for German regional bias against Slavs, Austria, for one example, in the 1800s treated the Serbs almost as poorly as the Ottomans did.

It was the same throughout Eastern Europe until modern times. Poland occupied parts of the Ukraine after the brief war with the Red Army and immediately started Polonizing the areas. Ethnic Germans were expelled from East Prussia, Silesia and the Sudetenland in 1945.

Christo , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:52 am GMT
@Parisian Guy No, I use rounded figures from what I recall. The USSR built about 50,000 T-34′s in WWII. They could do this because the USA sent them over 500,000 trucks. The USSR was able to build 50,000 T-34′s becuase they did not have to build alot of the trucks they used . A tank aint worth anything without support ammo fuel, which all is delivered by truck. Now for your theory to hold any water , we could say simply the USSR could have built half the number of tanks 25,000 T-34 's to build 250,000 of those trucks themselves instead . Stiil alot of tanks . The only problem is the USSR lost 45000 of those 50000 T-34′s , so they never would have made it with half the T-34′s along with half the truck's of which most truck were used to support other forces beside tanks.

Then you aslos have to add the USSR recieved 20000 tanks (afv's) and 20000 aircraft from the USA UK as well. Do you thinjk the Soviet army could have fought barefoot? Becuase the USA send them over 5 million pairs of boots IIRC. Lend lease overall amounted at least half of all Soviet equipment and supplies

No the USSR would simply have lost WWII without lend -lease equipment supplies, handy figures

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 6:03 am GMT
@Fidelios Automata I know that controversy about who wanted war. There is the same about the start of WW2. I have no opinion. For instance, i've also read that US/UK were very actively trying to convince Stalin that Hitler was secretly wanting to attack USSR as soon as he could. So Stalin planned for a preemptive attack. My guess is we will never be able to know the truth with certainty.
Franz , says: December 16, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
@Parisian Guy

The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth. That's a meme which has been propagated as soon as the USSR went down around 1990 (thus, there was no more powerful voice to contradict the lies).

Part true, but you're overshooting just a bit.

In 1962, East minus West = zero by Werner Keller was published by Putnam in the USA. There were previous non-US editions.

As I heard it, the big complaint in 1962 (one of) was Foreign Aid. Keller's book gave JFK's opponents another brick to lob at him, because Keller detailed the extent of that particular aid that American industrial workers and military had been quiet about due to secrecy laws.

Since Keller's book had a non-USA roots, it was okay. Might seem idiotic to blame JFK for FDR's sins, but politics in this asylum works that way.

Because Keller never claimed Lend Lease "won" the war, his volume is rarely cited which is too bad because he got the details fresh, less than 20 years after the war from sources close to the factory gate and battleground.

I have not heard of any major errors in the book. Copies are still floating around, but it's over 350 pages and not light reading.

If anyone cares to critique Keller, I have no quarrel. But so far as I know his book was the first "reveal" that considered Lend Lease to be any more than a case of a few shiploads of ammunition and tinned food. Much earlier than the 90s.

apollonian , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Parisian Guy Jews Leading Subjectivists, Satanists, Controlling Establishment Christianity

Parisian Jew; regarding lend-lease, the facts speak–it doesn't matter what "polls" say, which argument of urs is mere version of fallacy of argument-fm-authority. I'm "proof," u say?–I stick to the obvious facts, and draw the clear, indicated conclusion soviets were beaten till resuscitated, rejuvenated, and actually primed by American aid and supply, especially of simple, basic food, and then the transportation.

Stalin and Russkies themselves URGENTLY asked for tanks and planes when Harry Hopkins first talked to them, so deficient they'd become, such losses they'd suffered. By end 1941 Russkies had already gotten 200,000 tons of American-produced supplies through the Brits (before Jew S A even officially got into the war)–Jewwy Wikipedia says they got 360,000 tons.

Jew "power"?–all u have to do is look at Israel, the "tail" wagging American (and everyone else) "dog." Jews obviously control finances and the world fiat-money and central-banking systems. But then HOW do Jew exercise that control? Note psychologically Jews control an extremely powerful segment of "Christian" population in Jew S A, called "Judeo-Christians" (JCs–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo), or "Christian-Zionists," about half of all evangelicals, perhaps numbering up to 40 million here who strongly support Israeli terror-state. Jews heavily influence and intimidate ALL establishment Christian churches throughout the world beginning w. "vatican" satanists and child-molesters.

But most of all, Jews are Talmudists (see Talmudical.blogspot.com), by definition, hence satanists, Jews being extreme subjectivists ("midrash"), which subjectivism holds reality is mere creation of mentality/consciousness, making themselves God, the creator–satanists. Further Jews are most COLLECTIVIST subjectivists, leading group-think practitioners, Jews most dedicated, most organized, most committed, most cohesive such subjectivists and group-think artists. Thus Jews control, lead, and manipulate practically all the other subjectivistic and satanists among the goyim who vastly out-number Jews–this satanism is crux of their psychologic power. And note satanism is also secular philosophy–extreme subjectivism–parallel to "religious" Talmudism–it doesn't matter if a Jew says he's "atheist." Thus Jews are most organized CRIMINALS and psychopaths, as we see in Israeli terror-state. Q.E.D.

Digital Samizdat , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Parisian Guy It's probably true that the lend-lease act played only a minor role in the Soviet Union's victory. Many people don't realize this, but the principal beneficiary of the lend-lease act was not the USSR, but rather the UK. In fact, Britain, whose population then was then about one-quarter of what the Soviet Union's was, received more than three times as much aid as the Soviets did. Per capita, that means they got twelve times more aid than the USSR.

But some people are destined to go on believing that surplus US jeeps turned the tide on the Eastern Front. So be it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Scale

Digital Samizdat , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:54 pm GMT
@llloyd Hitler admitted that he was Jewish? Really? I'm sorry, but I seem to be having trouble finding your source citation here!
apollonian , says: December 16, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
@llloyd Llloyd, u disappoint me once again, my boy: unc' Adolf was NOT descended fm any Jew, get a clue. We see u're very poor historian, gullible and un-informed, merely retailing Jew lies: get the real story; see https://carolynyeager.net/fake-legends-adolf-hitler%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cjewish-grandfather%E2%80%9D .

The lies about unc' Adolf's parentage are mere concoction of Jews, beginning w. a couple of them, named Langer, a common Jew name, and his brother, a psychologist, the first one having been appointed head of the Research and Analysis Section of the OSS, no less. The lies center upon the un-founded assertion that Hitler's grandmother was a domestic servant who worked for Jews. On contrary, it's known Maria Schickelgruber didn't need such employment as she was not poor, her parents having retired rather well-off, she inheriting significant funds:

"2. Maria Anna Schicklgruber was not a poor housemaid who worked for wealthy Jewish families. The daughter of Johann Schicklgruber, a prosperous farmer in possession of a well-appointed farm in the village of Strones, and Theresia Pfseisinger, she was born in 1795 and is described by Maser as a thrifty, reserved and exceptionally shrewd peasant woman. She gives every appearance of having been strong-minded, a trait that was passed down to her son Alois and her grandson, Adolf.

"3. Maria Anna Schicklgruber's brother, Jakob, purchased the family farm from his father for 3000 gulden when the father was only 53 years old. Maria's mother, Theresia, had just inherited 210 gulden from her father's total estate of 1054 gulden, so the parents felt prosperous enough to retire. To put the value of 3000 gulden in perspective: a cow at that time could be purchased for 10 to 12 gulden; a brood sow cost 4 gulden; a bed w/bedding was 2 gulden; an inn with stabling could be had for 450 to 500 gulden. As you can see, 3000 gulden was a substantial amount.

"4. Maria Anna, at the age of 26, inherited 74.25 gulden at the death of her mother in 1821. She kept this sum in the Orphans' Fund until 1838, earning 5% interest. By then, it had increased to 165 gulden, over double the original amount. Her son was not born until June 1837 when she was 42 yrs. old."

And there were no Jews in the vicinity:

"A) From the end of the 15th Century until a decade after Maria Anna died, no Jews lived in Graz. They had been expelled by Emperor Maximilian I in 1496 from the province of Styria, which included Graz. In 1781, under Joseph II, they were allowed to re-enter, but only for a few weeks at a time, during Lent and at the Feast of St. Giles to the annual Fairs, after paying a fixed sum. Two years later, these rights were again curtailed, and it remained enforced until 1860 that no Jews whatsoever could even enter the province."

"12. The Rothschild in Vienna story: This is debunked for the same reasons. Maria Anna Schicklgruber did not visit or live in Vienna, and there is no record of who these Rothschilds were, their address or other necessary information."

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
@Christo Not sure what the reliability of your source is. For instance, it pretend that USSR used lot of US made planes, and went upto copy without permission the design of the Boeing B-29. But the B29 was not operational before the summer of 1944
One cannot say this american source is unbiased.

My point is: all this story did not went public before the demise of USSR. If it was true, it would have not wait for so long. It looks like that story was not to sustainable before the USSR voice went mute.
There are other cases where USSR story has been rewritten after its death.

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Franz Thanks for these cautiously weighted informations.
Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@apollonian Stalin and Russkies themselves URGENTLY asked for tanks and planes

What they actually asked for was what had been promised: intervene in Europe far before 1944.

JLK , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:16 pm GMT
@llloyd

He apparently admitted to his staff he was Jewish descent himself.

Journalists determined Hitler's Y-DNA (paternal line) to be haplogroup E-M35 ("E1b1b1″) by testing some of his male relatives back around 2010. It led to a few typically deprecatory articles around that time that he might be of Jewish or African origin. E-M35 was also Albert Einstein's haplogroup. However, there are subgroups under E-M35 that can be detected by a slightly more comprehensive deep clade test.

I find it hard to believe that the journalists didn't spring for the extra hundred dollars or so needed for a deep clade test. The results have probably been kept out of the news for some reason. There may be good humanitarian reasons, such as to shield innocent secret descendants. But complete results could settle the longstanding question of his illegitimate father's paternity. The most common rumor is that Alois Hitler's mother worked in the Jewish Frankenberger household of Graz and was impregnated by the 19 year old son Leopold Frankenberger. However, there is a declassified US Government report on the CIA website that states that Schuschnigg's pre-Anschluss Austrian government researched Hitler's genealogy and determined that she actually worked for the Vienna Rothschilds. It notes that Hitler's sister worked for the Jewish Mensa society in Vienna and that Hitler's ability level was more consistent with a Rothschild than with his putative Austrian peasant background.

Of course Schuschnigg's government was looking for dirt on Hitler, and connecting him with the Rothschilds would be even juicier than assigning him incidental Jewish ancestry. The Rothschild paternal line is reported on the Internet to be an entirely different haplogroup. However, there may be good security reasons to mislead the public on that point. Interesting, nonetheless.

As I read somewhere, so were about a quarter of the German populaton including many of his generals, his favourite little girl and his chaffeur.

25% is probably little high, but the rate of intermarriage is Germany was higher than it had ever been anywhere else in diaspora history, and there were a lot of children. The liberal reform Judaism movement originated in Germany. The evidence suggests that Jews were more comfortable among the Germans in many ways than they had ever been in Eastern Europe, at least until the Balfour Declaration and the associated recrimination in the aftermath of WWI.

The Daily Mirror ran a unusually flattering article on Hitler and his "favorite little girl" (who was only 1/4th Jewish) a few months ago. She used to call him "Uncle Hitler."

His chauffeur's name was Emil Maurice, who asked permission to date Hitler's niece, Geli Raubal. Hitler refused and she shot herself. Hitler thought Maurice was a loyal Nazi and stood by him, even when his partial Jewish ancestry was revealed.

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat the principal beneficiary of the lend-lease act was not the USSR, but rather the UK

Thanks for getting the point with comparative datas.
That's so true that lend-lease for UK was regular teaching at schools in France, but Lend-lease for USSR was never mentionned.
France was allways neutral or pro-US, depending the time or the matter. Thus France had no motive to teach an History which would hide the USSR lend-lease, if it had been material.

phil , says: December 16, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
Guilliaume,

You are a great guy to read, but your economic model is a little defective. You make it sound like Venezuela would have been OK, but that pesky Amerindian admixture dragged its average IQ down to 85; so socialism is claimed to be viable if we have the "right" people.

China has a much higher average IQ, perhaps higher than the US, but as of 1978, its average living standards were comparable to Kenya, Nigeria, and Mozambique. East Germany was well below the level of West Germany. North Korea is way below South Korea.

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is pure capitalism (private ownership) and 0 is complete government control, a country is in trouble economically, regardless of IQ, if it falls below 5. A Nazi government was able to bring about an impressive cyclical recovery during the 1930s, but its longer-term prospects would have depended on whether it allowed market forces to operate to a reasonable degree.

dfordoom , says: Website December 17, 2018 at 3:51 am GMT
@Parisian Guy

Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of russian made T34, patriotic soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart generals.

The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth.

The Soviets were capable of stopping the Germans with their own resources.

They may have been capable of reconquering some lost territory but it would have been a hard slog with no guarantees of success.

The Lend-Lease equipment, especially the trucks, made it possible for the reconquest to be complete and for eastern Europe to be overrun, giving the Soviet Union a buffer zone against any future aggression from the west.

The Soviet achievement was certainly impressive. They went from being lousy at mobile warfare to being very very good at it. But you can't wage mobile warfare without lots and lots of trucks and there was no way they could have produced those trucks themselves. The American trucks allowed the Soviets to concentrate on producing tanks and aircraft.

The Americans were certainly happy to let the Soviets do the hard fighting. Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration – these were the battles that won the war.

Alain Soral: "Marx ****s Hitler", by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT
@dfordoom Richard Overy, 'Why the allies won', New York, London, 1995
USA technical military support of Russia already began in 1933:
Franz Kurowski, 'Balkenkreuz und Roter Stern, Der Luftkrieg über Russland 1941 – 1944′, 1984, Friedberg
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:06 am GMT
@apollonian An unknown book describing how GB steered towards war in the thirties is
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
GB guarantees began at the north side of the Med
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
@Parisian Guy Without USA economic support GB could not have fought WWI, nor WWII.
But even with USA economic support the USA had to intervene militarily.
It is hardly ever mentioned anywhere, but by November 1917 Germany would have won the war in Europe:
Donald McCormick, 'The mask of Merlin, A Critical Study of David Lloyd George', London, 1963
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Andy " ´Als die Deutschen weg waren, Was nach der Vertreibung geschah: Ostpreussen, Schlesien, Sudetenland', 2005, 2007, Reinbek, Adrian von Arburg, Wlodzimierz Borodziej, Jurij Kostjaschow, Ulla Lachauer, Hand-Dieter Rutsch, Beate Schlanstein, Christian Schulz "

Trans: After the Geermans had left, what happened after the expulsion.
A quite interesting book about German superiority.
The expulsion of the Germans led to collapse of industries.

[Dec 17, 2018] Visualizing The West's Domination Of The Global Arms Market

Dec 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Overall, arms sales increased in 2017, with total global sales nearing 400 billion dollars, marking a 2.5 percent increase from last year and the third year of continued growth for the industry.

But, as Statista's Sarah Feldman points out, U.S. arms companies still produce the most weapons worldwide.

You will find more infographics at Statista

About 57 percent of weapons produced last year came from the United States , according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute SIPRI .

Russia comes in second, with year-over-year growth in arms production. In 2017, Russia provided the world with 10 percent of arms sales, closely followed by The UK.

Only major arms companies were included in this study. China was excluded due to insufficient data.


Beans , 43 minutes ago link

Problem with this is that the buyers of all that American weaponry are definitely not got any 'bang for the proverbial buck' (pun intended). Horrendously overpriced weaponry which in most instances render less value and effectiveness than similarly available Russian analogues.

Justin Case , 17 minutes ago link

They know, the arms are inferior garbage, it's just like mafioso protection money or better known as extortion. The charge a fortune for substandard weapons and MIC folks keep the change. Same as murican tax payers. If there were no boogie men created then what would be the justification for all the spending on military hardware?

There is no return on investment here. It's money laundering.

Atlana99 , 1 hour ago link

Why spend your money to help the poor people in your own country when you can use that money to build weapons to kill poor people in other countries?

https://cointrader21.wordpress.com/2018/12/03/americas-ongoing-holocaust-of-the-poor/

khnum , 4 hours ago link

Purchasers Saudi Arabia 110 billion with 240 billion more to come,Israel 38 billion=35 percent

CosineCosineCosine , 4 hours ago link

Letter of intent only. They have literally purchased none of those orders, despite repeated US harassment for the 15 Billion for the THAADS to get the ball rolling. All bluster and boasting and smoke and mirrors.

My suspicion is that SA under MBS is considering switching sides slowly and will purchase Russian and Chinese instead. If the US had foreknowledge of this, hence the switch in tone re butchering journalists and Yemenis ... hence why MBS isn't Time Magazine poster boy at the moment.

khnum , 4 hours ago link

Your correct I went back and checked it was order book not delivery,MBS situation is very interesting with the recent high five with Putin there was some backstory that it was celebration of a certain US admirals demise that was causing them problems whether true or not I dont know but it would not surprise me if S400's end up in Saudi Arabia

Ace006 , 5 hours ago link

Remember that old stuff about Krupp being the "Merchant of Death"? Aren't we, like, edging into that territory? Is this what the Founders and Ratifiers had in mind? Could this enormous arms trade and our military expenditures and adventures be a clue that we're on the wrong track?

Front Store

US vs Russian arms sales since 1950:

http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-visualizing-us-and-russian-arms-sales-since-1950/

[Dec 16, 2018] A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars by James Petras

So much for peace that neoliberal globalization should supposedly bring...
Notable quotes:
"... We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations. ..."
"... In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America ..."
"... China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. ..."
"... In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. ..."
"... The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports ..."
"... The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei. ..."
"... Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown. ..."
Dec 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations.

We will proceed to identify 'great power' confrontations and then proceed to discuss the stages of 'proxy' wars with world war consequences.

In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America.

China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. China has built an alternative socio-economic model which links state banks and planning to private sector priorities. On all these counts the US has fallen behind and its future prospects are declining.

In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. President Trump has declared a tariff war on China; and multiple separatist and propaganda war; and aerial and maritime encirclement of China's mainland

The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports.

The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei.

The White House has moved up the ladder of aggression from sanctions to extortion to kidnapping. Provocation, is one step up from military intimidation. The nuclear fuse has been lit.

Russia faces similar threats to its domestic economy, its overseas allies, especially China and Iran as well as the US renunciation of intermediate nuclear missile agreement

Iran faces oil sanctions, military encirclement and attacks on proxy allies including in Yemen, Syria and the Gulf region Washington relies on Saudi Arabia, Israel and paramilitary terrorist groups to apply military and economic pressure to undermine Iran's economy and to impose a 'regime change'.

Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown.

Wars by Proxy

The US has targeted a second tier of enemies, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

In Latin America the US has waged economic warfare against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. More recently it has applied political and economic pressure on Bolivia. To expand its dominance Washington has relied on its vassal allies, including Brazil, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay as well as right-wing elites throughout the region

As in numerous other cases of regime change Washington relies on corrupt judges to rule against President Morales, as well as US foundation funded NGO's; dissident indigenous leaders and retired military officials. The US relies on local political proxies to further US imperial goals is to give the appearance of a 'civil war' rather than gross US intervention.

In fact, once the so-called 'dissidents' or 'rebels' establish a foot hole, they 'invite' US military advisers, secure military aid and serve as propaganda weapons against Russia, China or Iran – 'first tier' adversaries.

In recent years US proxy conflicts have been a weapon of choice in the Kosovo separatist war against Serbia; the Ukraine coup of 2014 and war against Eastern Ukraine; the Kurd take over of Northern Iraq and Syria; the US backed separatist Uighurs attack in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

The US has established 32 military bases in Africa, to coordinate activities with local warlords and plutocrats. Their proxy wars are discarded as local conflict between 'legitimate' regimes and Islamic terrorists, tribality and tyrants.

The objective of proxy wars are threefold. They serve as 'feeders' into larger territorial wars encircling China, Russia and Iran.

Secondly, proxy wars are 'testing grounds' to measure the vulnerability and responsive capacity of the targeted strategic adversary, i.e. Russia, China and Iran.

Thirdly, the proxy wars are 'low cost' and 'low risk' attacks on strategic enemies. The lead up to a major confrontation by stealth.

Equally important 'proxy wars' serve as propaganda tools, associating strategic adversaries as 'expansionist authoritarian' enemies of 'western values'.

Conclusion

US empire builders engage in multiple types of aggression directed at imposing a unipolar world. At the center are trade wars against China; regional military conflicts with Russia and economic sanctions against Iran.

These large scale, long-term strategic weapons are complemented by proxy wars, involving regional vassal states which are designed to erode the economic bases of counting allies of anti-imperialist powers.

Hence, the US attacks China directly via tariff wars and tries to sabotage its global "Belt and Road' infrastructure projects linking China with 82 counties.

Likewise, the US attacks Russian allies in Syria via proxy wars, as it did with Iraq, Libya and the Ukraine.

Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war.

However, the US quest for world domination has so far taken steps which have failed to isolate or weaken its strategic adversaries.

China moves forward with its global infrastructure programs: the trade war has had little impact in isolating it from its principal markets. Moreover, the US policy has increased China's role as a leading advocate of 'open trade' against President Trump's protectionism.

ORDER IT NOW

Likewise, the tactics of encircling and sanctioning Russia has deepened ties between Moscow and Beijing. The US has increased its nominal 'proxies' in Latin America and Africa but they all depend on trade and investments from China. This is especially true of agro-mineral exports to China.

Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes, Washington has taken moves to compensate for its failures by escalating the threats of a global war. It kidnaps Chinese economic leaders; it moves war ships off China's coast; it allies with neo-fascist elites in the Ukraine. It threatens to bomb Iran. In other words the US political leaders have embarked on adventurous policies always on the verge of igniting one, too, many nuclear fuses.

It is easy to imagine how a failed trade war can lead to a nuclear war; a regional conflict can entail a greater war.

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!


Per/Norway , says: December 12, 2018 at 10:29 pm GMT

I disagree. The parasitic terror regime that runs washington believe they can win a nuclear war, i have no hope left for peace. They need a culling of the "useless eaters", we are stealing the food out of their poor frightened children`s mouths by existing.
Eric Zuesse wrote a decent article yesterday at the Saker blog about the US nuclear forces and its owners wet dream.
"The U.S. Government's Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion"
The actions of nato/EU/UK/ISR/KSA etc certainly supports his article, at least in my opinion.
Anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 12, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
Useful and clear article.

The US, and the West, by instigating wars elsewhere, and selling weapons to those, destroy countries and prosperity abroad. Those living in target countries find themselves miserable, with loss of everything. It is only natural that they may try to escape a living hell by emigrating to the West.

People in the US and the West in general will not want mass immigration, and with good reason; but if you were in a war torn country or an impoverished country (as a result of western "help") you would also attempt to move away from the bombs, etc.

If the West left the rest of the world alone (in terms of their regimes and in terms of their weapons), they might prosper and no longer need to run away from their home countries.

Can we build a better world, please?!

Godfree Roberts , says: December 12, 2018 at 11:32 pm GMT
The sanctions and embargoes have failed in the past, when China was much weaker, so we can be quite confident that they will fail again, and quickly, as this timeline suggests:

September 3, 2018 : Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to use Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM. With 20 percent faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has twice the performance of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency to deliver 10cm. positioning.

September 5, 2018 . China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's semiconductor capacity this year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.

September 15, 2018. China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations operating as the rest of the world combined.

September 21, 2018 . China has reached global technological parity and now has twelve of the world's top fifty IC design houses (China's SMIC is fourth, Huawei's HiSilicon is seventh), and twenty-one percent of global IC design revenues. Roger Luo, TSMC.

October 2, 2018 . Chinese research makes up 18.6 percent of global STEM peer-reviewed papers, ahead of the US at 18 percent. "The fact that China's article output is now the largest is very significant. It's been predicted for a while, but there was a view this was not likely to happen until 2025," said Michael Mabe, head of STM.

October 14, 2018 . Huawei announces 7 nm Ascend 910 chipset for data centers, twice as powerful as Nvidia's v100 and the first AI IP chip series to natively provide optimal TeraOPS per watt in all scenarios. Available 2Q19.

October 7, 2018 : China becomes largest recipient of FDI in H1, attracting an estimated 70 billion U.S. dollars, according to UNCTAD.

October 8, 2018: Taiwan's Foxconn moves its major semiconductor maker and five integrated circuit design companies to Jinan, China.

October 22, 2018 . China becomes world leader in venture capital, ahead of the US and almost twice the rest of the world's $53.4 billion YTD. The Crunchbase report says the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the world is undergoing a major transformation: it is now driven by China instead of the US.

peterAUS , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:02 am GMT
Apart from that "nuclear war" from:

Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war

good article.
Only idiot can believe that nuclear war can be won, IMHO. Elites aren't suicidal, oh no. On the contrary.

Can they make a mistake and cause that war, definitely.

Which brings us to the important part:

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support.

Agree, but, that's exactly the reason I disagree with:

There are reasons to hope!

No need to be pedantic, of course there is always a reason for hope.
But, I see it as so fertile ground for making The MISTAKE .

Giuseppe , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!

It's when the elite war mongers' backs are up against the wall that they come up with a cleverly designed false flag attack to rally public support for war. They are more dangerous now than ever.

Splitpin , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:43 am GMT
Agree about Russia and China, however Iran needs to be viewed not as a play for oil or the Islamic crowd but driven wholly and solely by Israel. Iran is not a threat to US in any context, only Israel.
Wally , says: December 15, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT
question:
If the relatively small tariffs on Chinese goods amount to 'direct attacks on China', then what are the massive tariffs by China on US goods?
Biff , says: December 15, 2018 at 8:57 am GMT
The "Chess men" behind "The Wall Street Economy" have stated a few times that the only way to remain the dominant economy is to first: convince rivals that resistance is futile, and second: to atomize any potential rival (Ghaddaffi is a clear example).

Breaking up Russia has been on the to-do list for decades, and I believe that the Chess Men have no idea what to do about containing China, and are clearly flat-footed, and desperate kidnapping a Chinese business executive.

The Wall Street Economy depended on cheap Chinese labor it's own profits, and that was Ok until .?
Until the writing on the Wall became ledgible .
The smell of genuine fear is in the air.

jilles dykstra , says: December 15, 2018 at 9:18 am GMT
" The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope! "

Is popular support needed to get a people in a war mood ?
Both Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 demonstrate, in my opinion, that it is not very difficult to create a war mood.
Yet, if another Sept 11 would do the trick, I wonder.
Sept 11 has been debated without without interruption since Sept 11.
After the 1946 USA Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour the USA government succeeded in preventing a similar discussion.
Until now the west, Deep State, NATO, EU did not succeed in provoking Russia or China.
Each time they tried something, in my opinion they did this several times, Russia showed its military superiority, at the same time taking care not to hurt public opinion in the west.

annamaria , says: December 15, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT
Is not it amazing that the morally miserable US, a "power in search of world domination through force and violence," is officially governed by self-avowed pious X-tians. What kind of corruption among the high-level clergy protects the satanists Pompeo, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Blair and such from excommunication?

Russians explaining the perdition of the US deciders: https://www.rt.com/news/446533-sergey-shoigu-syria-inf/

"Washington does little to nothing to restore peace and help the devastated region to recover from the long war, while its [US] airstrikes continue to rack up civilian deaths At the same time, the US military presence at the Al-Tanf airbase and the "armed gangs" around it prevent refugees from returning home."

– Nothing new. The multi-denominational Syria has been pounded by the US-supported "moderate" terrorists (armed with US-provided arms and with UK-provided chemical weaponry) to satisfy the desires of Israel-firsters, arm-dealers and the multitude of war-profiteers that have been fattening their pockets at the US/UK taxpayers' expense.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article204373.html

"Timber Sycamore" [initiated by Obama] is the most important arms trafficking operation in History. It involves at least 17 governments. The transfer of weapons, meant for jihadist organizations, is carried out by Silk Way Airlines, a Azerbaïdjan public company of cargo planes."

-- Biochemical warfare by the UK & US

https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-23/us-history-chemical-weapons-use-complicity-war-crimes

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-five-most-deadly-chemical-weapons-war-10897

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/10/04/576081/Russia-Kirillov-US-Georgia-Richard-Lugar-chemical-weapons-lab

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/09/21/bombshell-secret-american-laboratory-performs-deadly-human-experiments-in-caucasus-georgia/

WHAT , says: December 15, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@Godfree Roberts Huawei can announce whatever, there are much more experienced adversaries(IBM, intel and ARM) who can`t beat nV in computation, and especially in integration of silicon. Guess who`s running inference and computer vision in all these car autopilots.
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: December 15, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
I do not think there will be an atomic war .

I think we could have an economic collapse like the Soviet Union had , or like Argentina had in 2001 with the " corralito " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corralito .

Being the complex and global society that we are , it would be a disaster , it would produce hunger , misery and all types of local wars .

VirtualAnon34 , says: December 15, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
"Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes "

Have to agree with that statement. Seriously, wherein is this vaunted "superpower" that our American politicians always yap about? All I've seen in my lifetime is our military getting its butt kicked in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. What, besides insanity and hubris, makes them think they could win anything much less a war against Iran, China or Russia?

Moi , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
@Splitpin It's the other way around–Israel is a threat to Iran.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
@WHAT What worth what? It did not help too much to GM. GM is shutting five of its plants.
SteveK9 , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:37 pm GMT
Mostly accurate, but 'closed protectionist society' ! Hardly. It's still very difficult to buy any manufactured goods made in this country. Of course this is part of the World economic circle countries use the US Dollar for all trade. They need dollars. We can print them and receive real goods in return. This has been going around and around for decades. It may come to an end in the not-too-distant future, but it has a lot of inertia.
Bill Jones , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

A mere piker compared to the American, Bernays

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

DESERT FOX , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
The only threat to patriotic Americans is Zionism which has ruled the U.S. since it took control over the money supply and the taxes via the privately owned Zionist FED and IRS and has given America nothing to wars and economic destruction since the FED and IRS were put in place by the Zionist banking kabal in 1913 and both are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American people as if it were from MARS!

Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!

Read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The Protocols of Zion, to see the Zionist satanic NWO plan.

wraith67 , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
Lost me at Kurd takeover of northern Iraq/Syria. The Kurds have defacto owned those areas since 1991, and earlier. Saddam gassing the Kurds didn't accomplish anything except for making himself a target, no Arab lived in those areas, the Kurds would kill them.
Agent76 , says: December 15, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal

The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.

Miro23 , says: December 15, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
I agree with Bob Sykes' commentary over on Instapundit:

Well, our "anti-ISIS" model in eastern Syria consists of defending ISIS against attacks by the Syrian government, allowing them to pump and export Syrian oil for their profit, arming them and allowing them to recruit new fighters. I suppose that means we should be arming the Taliban.

ISIS was created by the CIA to fight against Assad. But they slipped the leash and became the fighting force for the dissident Sunni Arabs all along the Euphrates Valley. We only began to oppose them when their rebellion reached the outskirts of Baghdad, and even then the bulk of the fighting was done by Iraq's Shias and Iran. Now we are transferring them, or many of them, into secure (for ISIS) areas of Iraq.

The three U.S. presidents, six secretaries of defense and five chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, in fact, war criminals, in exactly the same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. Those presidents, secretaries and generals launched wars of aggression against Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen not one of which threatened us in any way. They engineered coups d'état against two friendly governments, Egypt and Turkey. Now the fake American, anti-American neocons want to attack Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and even Russia and China.

Green needs to get his head out of his arse. We, the US, are the great rogue terrorist state. We are the evil empire. We are the chief source of death and destruction in the world. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have we murdered in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia? How many cities have we bombed flat like Raqqa and Mosel. Putin is a saint compared to any US President.

Winston2 , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
Iran has always been at the center of the Great Game, the key square on the board to block
Eurasia.You must either control Afghanistan AND Pakistan or Iran.
With Pakistan now in the SCO, Iran is a US imperative.
Israels antipathy is secondary and a useful foil, not the primary motive.
Read MacKinder, the imperial power has changed, not the strategy.
Durruti , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:29 pm GMT
Open Letter to James Petras.

Your article has a glaring emptiness.

How is it possible for anyone to write an article titled:

A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars

without mentioning the Principal Detonator of Global Wars?? The Elephant!

The United States of America is no longer a Sovereign Nation.

The Local Political Power Elite (C. Wright Mills term), serve, are Minions, of the Zionist Jewish Financial Terrorist Initiators and Controllers of the Global New World Order.

I would express this point in stronger terms, but I have not yet finished my coffee. The "Mulitiple Detonators" Petras discusses are useless unless Triggered by the Global Controllers.

A Slight Digression: maybe:

Petras may have written his exposé this way, understanding that he might safely avoid mention of the anti-Semitic (they hate Palestinians and other Arabs – actual Semites), Zionist Land Thieves, because a clueless Anarchist would appear and complete his article for him. If that is the case, I want half of the $ Unz is paying Petras for this article.

In Conclusion: and by the number###:

1. The American Power Elite and servile Politicians in America's Knesset in Washington DC, do not go to the Bathroom, without permission from their Zionist Oligarch masters.

2. The American Gauleters, Quislings, (better known as Traitors), serve the Rothschild and other Foreign Oligarchs. Recently, only 1, of 100 'Senators' demanded that there be a discussion of the Bill to send another $35 Billion gift to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. Poor Senator Rand Paul . How many ribs of his remain to be broken?

We the American people, have one Senator. And he has a great father.

3. Textbooks, Entertainment from Hollywood (key to all mind control), even Dictionaries, have been ruthlessly censored.

4. Our elected Zionist slaves in Congress, and all State and local governing bodies, live in fear of saying (accidentally), some truth, and ending up working at Walmart or 7-11, (if they are lucky).

5. Our young are effectively brainwashed in their schools; they have already been removed from their parents.

6. Our politicians are bribed with our own tax money (re-routed by the Zionists AIPAC, etc.).

7. The Zionist Entity has huge Financial Resources . They should be giving us 'Financial $$ Aid, not the other way around. Since NAFTA, we have entire cities & tons of infrastructure to rebuild.

Excuse me : Girlfriend thinks I should go to work.

Petras, I just fleshed out your, otherwise, promising article. You must understand – that the ethnic cleansing – genocide, against the Palestinian Nation, by the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs, is the greatest single crime being committed on our Planet. All other crimes stem from this one.

We Americans must Restore Our Republic!

John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, M L King, Malcolm X. John Lennon; we are late, but we are coming.

God Bless!

Durruti

Durruti , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Agree with all.

Worth repeating:

The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American people as if it were from MARS!

One comment:

Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!

In order to accomplish the above , we American Citizen Patriots – must Restore Our Republic – that, with our Last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, was destroyed by the Zionist Oligarchs and their American underling traitors, in a hail of bullets, on November 22, 1963.

jilles dykstra , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Miro23 " same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. "
Why were they war criminals ?
Because of the Neurenberg farce ?; farce according to the chairman of the USA Supreme Court in 1945:
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
Churchill and Lindemann in fact murdered some two million German civilians, women, children, old men. Not a crime ?
Churchill refused the May 1941 Rudolf Hess peace proposal, not a crime ?
FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, some 2700 casualties, his pretcxt for war, not a crime ?
900.000 German hunger deaths between the 1918 cease fire and Versailles, the British food blockade, not a crime ?
Will these wild accusations ever stop ?
Reuben Kaspate , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:17 pm GMT
I am all for the mother of all wars; however, it isn't going to come anytime soon, nay, not in our lifetime but when it does appear on the next century's horizon, it would be cathartic to all concerned. Rejoice!
Charles Carroll , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:42 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX If you want to know who rules over you, ask yourself who you are not permitted to criticize.
Bill Jones , says: December 15, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra ""Will these wild accusations ever stop ?"

Nah, Don't you know that being a Holohoax victim is now genetically transmitted.

"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

And after the forth generation, there'll be something else.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 8:17 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra They were war criminals because they lost the war. But hanging of Bock was a little bit overboard.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
Europe is realigning. England leaving Euro. French population is in upheaval. Eventually France will leave the Euro also.Most of German tourists now are going to Croatia. Italy is loosing tourists.
Italy living standard is declining. Germany is being pushed inevitably toward cooperation with Russia. Only supporter of Ukraine will remain USA. Ukraine will be only burden.
Brussels power will evaporate. NATO will remain only on paper and will cease to be reality.
.
This will be great step toward peace in the world.
Anon [118] Disclaimer , says: Website December 15, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
Unexpected turn of events.

http://theduran.com/the-real-reason-western-media-cia-turned-against-saudi-mbs/

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Anon Outstanding analysis,

US is treating its allies as used toilet paper.
Obviously Kashogi was sentenced to death for high treason in absence. The sentence was carried out on Saudi Arabia's territory. So in reality it is nobody's business.
All hula-buu did happen because he was a reporter working for warmongering Zionist New york times.

Socratic Truth , says: December 16, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT
@Durruti I agree with you partly, especially when it comes to the US regarding Zionism and the power of the Israel lobby to influence US foreign policy and even domestic policy.
But when it comes to Global governance, you have a somewhat narrow minded approach.
Most of the ills today that happen in the world, is driven by the NEW WORLD ORDER OF NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIZATION.
Unrelated phenomena, such as the destruction in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria), the destruction of Yugoslavia, the coup in Ukraine and the Greek economic catastrophe are a consequence of this NWO expansion. NWO expansion is the phasing out of national sovereignty (through economic and/or military violence) and its replacement by a kind of transnational sovereignty administered by a Transnational Elite. This is the network of the elites mainly based in the G7 countries, which control the world economic and political/ military institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, European Central Bank, NATO, UN and so on), as well as the global media that set the agenda of the 'world community'.
The US is an important part of this since it provides the Military Means to integrate countries that do not "comply" with the NWO dictates.
The Zionists carry a lot of blame and are part of that drive for this NWO, but there are others, most of them in the US and Europe.

Here's a good link to an article if you have time, with good info about NWO & Trasnational corporations that are mainly to blame about all the worlds and misery in our world today.

THE MYTHS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/15-12-2014/129299-new_world_order_myths-0/

anon_4 , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:18 am GMT
@WHAT back door Intel , embedded ARM Open source Red Hat-IBM Hummm?.

I am not so sure, Mr. What. Experience may not mean much to abused IAI consumers. even if IAI catches up to the exponential fundamentals achieved by Huawei consumers might prefer back-door-free equipment and Operating Systems.

Russian times reported a few weeks ago that Russia has a quite different new processor and an OS that does not use any IAI stuff and is developing a backup Internet for Russians which it expects to expand regionally,

annamaria , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
Here is lengthy repost from ZeroHedge (the comment section): https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/leaked-memo-touts-uk-funded-firms-ability-create-untraceable-news-sites-infowar

"What we have then, are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises

Norman Dodd, director of research for the (U.S.) REECE COMMITTEE in its attempt to investigate tax exempt foundations, stated:

"The Foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being."

The Rothschilds rule the U.S. through the foundations, the Council on foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve System, with no serious challenges to their power. Expensive 'political campaigns' are routinely conducted, with carefully screened candidates who are pledged to the program of the WORLD ORDER. Should they deviate from the program, they would have an 'accident', be framed on a sex charge, or indicted on some financial irregularity.

Senator Moynihan stated in his book, "Loyalties", "A British friend, wise in the ways of the world, put it thus: "They are now on page 16 of the Plan." Moynihan prudently did not ask what page 17 would bring.

"Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioural science along Freudian lines of 'controlling' humans established it as the world center of FOUNDATION ideology.

[MORE]
Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Standford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Centre of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations.

(at the time of writing, 1992) Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 billion a year network of foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the WORLD ORDER over the American people.

The personnel of the FOUNDATIONS are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions.

A network of secret groups – the MONT PELERIN SOCIETY, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, DITCHLEY FOUNDATION, and CLUB OF ROME is the conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on AMERICAN prisoners of war in KOREA.

Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behaviour through topical psychology.

A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a 'refugee', the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve the U.S. in WWII.

In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up the OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.

Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids [against the German people] carried out by [the ALL LIES] Roosevelt and Churchill as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions".

All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal – to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the WORLD ORDER.

Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behaviour, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.

The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to 'establish new rituals of personal interactions', that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives – destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family.

Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioural science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries. Tavistock maintains 2 schools at Frankfort, birthplace of the Rothschilds, the FRANKFURT SCHOOL, and the Sigmund Freud Institute.

The 'experiment' in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert of the OSS (forerunner of CIA) and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations.

The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association.

The Institute of Social Research at the Natl Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.

Another prominent Tavistock operation is the WHARTON SCHOOL OF FINANCE.

A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy – the use of drugs such as the infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, directed by Dr Sidney Gottlieb, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD and their reactions studied like guinea pigs, resulting in several deaths – no one was ever indicted.

(Source of info: author Eustace Mullins "The World Order: Our Secret Rulers" 2nd ed. 1992. He dedicated his book "to American patriots and their passion for liberty". note: No copyright restrictions)

Socratic Truth , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:31 am GMT
@Agent76 Excellent video. More people need to see this to understand how corrupt the China Totalitarian state works behind the scenes along with the US as part of the Globalization NWO movement to enrich the few and impoverish the rest of the world population.

[Dec 15, 2018] Robert Kagan s Jungle Book of Forever War

One problem with this fat warmonger (and his wife Victoria Nuland) is that nether he not his children were ever forced to take M16 and fight for the policies he promotes. In other words he is a typical chickenhawk, a lobbyist of MIC on good salary. In some way this fat pig bellicosity is aside effect of abolishing universal draft. He also probably was not a fighter and never was severely beaten by super fighters in school or university. A typical nice Jewish kid.
Attempt to build global neoliberal empire reserving for the USA dominant position ("Full spectrum dominance") cost dear to the common Americans and now it is clear that this initiative of neocons and their paymasters (financial oligarchy and military industrial complex -- the neoliberal elite in other words) failed.
Kagan might be a talented propagandist of "full spectrum dominance" neoconservative policies, but it is important to understand that intellectually he is a lightweight: he believes his own propaganda.
From comments: "When one sees Pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is Kagan talking with his neo con war mongering."
Notable quotes:
"... Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC. ..."
"... The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two. ..."
"... The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people. ..."
"... "the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict. ..."
"... Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period. ..."
"... One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading. ..."
"... When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering. ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, Kagan is an influential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at The Washington Post , and a member of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties.

As a writer and public intellectual, Kagan has skillfully crafted historical narratives and strategic assessments supporting his overarching neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign policy. His 1996 Foreign Affairs article with Bill Kristol, " Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy ," still resonates today as a concise hallmark statement of that approach to America's role in the world. With a long list of prominent books and articles following in that vein, it is little wonder that Andrew Bacevich called him "the chief foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement."

Kagan's newest book, The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World , fits nicely into his corpus. It is a spirited defense of the "American-led liberal world order" by one of its most cogent and articulate advocates. It is part curated history, part philippic for his preferred strategic vision for the United States. In this small volume, Kagan argues that the enlightened order America created after World War II has allowed for much progress in the world. But this order is not natural, and its great benefits have been "made possible by the protection afforded liberalism within the geographical and geopolitical space created by American power." To Kagan, this liberal order is "fragile and impermanent," requiring constant care by its architect and beneficiary, the United States. He sees the liberal order as being "like a garden, artificial and forever threatened by the forces of nature." Thus "preserving it requires a persistent, unending struggle against the vines and weeds that are constantly working to undermine it from within and overwhelm it from without." Otherwise, the jungle will "grow back and engulf us all."

The problem with the book is its reliance on some questionable historical and contemporary assessments, not to mention that it fails to really make the case for the necessity and desirability of the liberal order in today's world.

Kagan begins The Jungle Grows Back by noting that the last 70 years of peace, prosperity, and the expansion of democracy and respect for individual rights have been an exception to the historical norm. Far from being the natural course or inevitable, this progress required something special and unique: that a liberal democratic country like the United States, with so many geopolitical and economic advantages, rose to international prominence after World War II. Not only that, but, as Kagan argues, American leaders were willing to use their great power at this special moment in history to act differently and to create a new and unique world order.

Rather than merely defend its narrow national interests, the United States created a liberal international order that it would take responsibility for upholding and protecting. Kagan argues that this approach wasn't, as some might argue, directed at the Soviet Union or anyone else in particular (though he admits the rise of the Soviet threat made it easier for Americans to accept it even as the strategy became more difficult to implement). Instead, "its chief purpose was to prevent a return to the economic, political, and strategic circumstances that had given rise to the last war." Thus, Kagan believes this internationalist approach was rooted in a realism about the nature of geopolitics in the 20th century and a realization that the world was a jungle that required "meeting power with greater power." American leaders had learned from World War II that they had to adopt a new approach to the world, one that created, in Dean Acheson's words, "an environment for freedom." To do otherwise would be to let disorder reign or for others to order the international system to the detriment of American interests and values.


JR December 14, 2018 at 12:35 am

Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-is-john-boltons-bully-pulpit-attack-on-the-international-criminal-court-really-about

Fran Macadam , says: December 14, 2018 at 1:59 am
"Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."

The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two.

The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people.

Given that the liberal cultural order in the Homeland is so quickly degrading, the imposition of it internationally is likely to become increasingly infected by poor judgment as well as resistance to it increasing.

It used to be in popular entertainment that the villains were interested in ruling the world, madmen with megalomania. That enemy is now within.

Daniel Good , says: December 14, 2018 at 5:55 am
"the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict.
Lawrence Coleman , says: December 14, 2018 at 6:23 am
Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision.
Sid Finster , says: December 14, 2018 at 11:23 am
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

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

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

In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

david , says: December 14, 2018 at 12:28 pm
"Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."

It is probably due to the fact that most people at that time thought Clinton was going to win. So his support for Clinton proved 2 things: warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period.

balconesfault , says: December 14, 2018 at 12:59 pm
One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading.
balconesfault , says: December 14, 2018 at 1:01 pm
@Wayne

"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: "

Had there never been an Iraq War – Muslim revolution could never have spilled over from Iraq to any other nations – because Saddam wasn't going to allow any Muslim revolution from happening within his borders.

WorkingClass , says: December 14, 2018 at 1:08 pm
..to his emergence in the post-Cold War era as arguably the leading intellectual advocate for a foreign policy of "benevolent global hegemony" -- what scholars call "primacy."

An "intellectual" war monger? A "benevolent" Imperialist? ...

S , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Wayne Lusvardi,

"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan. Afghanistan is just another buffer country to fight the Iranian stealth war."

I presume that history started in 2003 and that you have never heard of Saddam Hussein (the guy who fought a long war with Iran aided by the US) or the Sunni Taliban who ruled Afghanistan and were opposed to Shia Iran. Except for the fraud and deceit done by the neocon controlled US regime of the time, these illegal wars would not have been possible. Pick up some real history books for a change. Don't learn about the Soviet Union from the Pravda.

Taras 77 , says: December 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm
When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering.

[Dec 14, 2018] Whataboutism proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth

Like the term "conspiracy theory "whataboutism" is a nasty and dirty propaganda trick. Truth can be understood only in historical context.
Notable quotes:
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: ..."
"... "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
May 04, 2018 | moonofalabama.org
XXX | 12

The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."

This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do.

What b points out is something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes b's analysis uniquely indispensable.

Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows:

"Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"

Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.

[Dec 14, 2018] Less Than Grand Strategy: Zbigniew Brzezinski s Cold War The Nation

The subtitle of this effusively admiring biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Grand Strategist, does not reflect its true purpose. A more accurate one might be this: "Just as Smart as the Other Guy." The other guy, of course, is Henry Kissinger. The implicit purpose of Justin Vaïsse's book is to argue that in his mastery of strategic thought and practice, Brzezinski ranks as Kissinger's equal.
Notable quotes:
"... That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. ..."
"... After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places. ..."
"... From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy. ..."
"... Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence. ..."
"... This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the ..."
"... Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse." ..."
"... Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake." ..."
"... Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976. ..."
"... When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity. ..."
"... Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success. ..."
"... From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation. ..."
"... The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect. ..."
"... The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Zbigniew Brzezinski: America's Grand Strategist By Justin Vaïsse; Catherine Porter, trans.

Buy this book

Underlying that purpose are at least two implicit assumptions. The first is that, when it comes to statecraft, grand strategy actually exists, not simply as an aspiration but as a discrete and identifiable element. The second is that, in his writings and contributions to US policy, Kissinger himself qualifies as a strategic virtuoso. For all sorts of reasons, we should treat both of these assumptions with considerable skepticism.

That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. His father was a diplomat whose family accompanied him on postings to France, Germany, and eventually to Canada. The Nazi invasion of 1939, which extinguished Polish independence, also effectively ended his father's diplomatic career. With war engulfing nearly all of Europe, Brzezinski would not set foot on Polish soil again for nearly two decades.

Although the young Brzezinski quickly adapted to life in Canada, the well-being of Poles and Poland remained an abiding preoccupation. After the war, he studied economics and political science at McGill University, focusing in particular on the Soviet Union, which by then had replaced Germany as the power that dominated the country of his birth. Brzezinski was a brilliant student with a particular interest in international affairs, a field increasingly centered on questions related to America's role in presiding over the postwar global order.

After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places.

From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy.

A s a scholar and author of works intended for a general audience, Zbig, as he was widely known, was nothing if not prolific. Churning out a steady stream of well-regarded books and essays, he demonstrated a particular knack for "summarizing things in a concise and striking way."

Clarity took precedence over nuance.

And with his gift for stylish packaging -- crafting neologisms ("technetronic") and high-sounding phrases ("Histrionics as History in Transition") -- his analyses had the appearance of novelty, even if they often lacked real substance.

Whether writing for his fellow scholars or addressing a wider audience, Brzezinski had one big idea when it came to Cold War strategy: He promoted the concept of "peaceful engagement" as a basis for US policy.

Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence.

Yet little of the Brzezinski oeuvre has stood the test of time. The American canon of essential readings in international relations and strategy, beginning with George Washington's farewell address and continuing on through works by John Quincy Adams, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Hans Morgenthau, and a handful of others (the list is not especially long), does not include anything penned by Brzezinski. Although Vaïsse, a senior official with the French foreign ministry, appears to have read and pondered just about every word his subject wrote or uttered, he identifies nothing of Brzezinski's that qualifies as must-reading for today's aspiring strategist.

This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the Press . He knew how to self-promote.

Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse."

F rom the time Brzezinski left Harvard in 1960 to accept a tenured position at Columbia, he made it his mission to nurture and facilitate that sophistication. For Zbig, New York offered a specific advantage over Cambridge: It provided a portal into elite political circles. As it had for Kissinger, the then-still-influential Council on Foreign Relations provided a venue that enabled Brzezinski to curry favor with the rich and powerful, and to establish his bona fides as a statesman to watch. Henry's patron was Nelson Rockefeller; Zbig's was Nelson's brother David.

Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake."

Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976.

Zbig and Jimmy hit it off. Soon enough, Brzezinski signed on as the candidate's principal foreign-policy adviser. When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity.

Zbig held this post throughout Carter's one-term presidency, from 1977 to 1981. It would be his first and last time in government. After 1981, Brzezinski went back to writing, continued to opine, and was occasionally consulted by Carter's successors, both Democratic and Republican. Yet despite having ascended to the rank of elder statesman, never again did Brzezinski occupy a position where he could directly affect US policy.

Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success.

From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation.

In a characteristic display of self-assurance and bureaucratic shrewdness, as the new president took office, Brzezinski gave him a 43-page briefing book prescribing basic administration policy. Under the overarching theme of "constructive global engagement," Brzezinski identified 10 specific goals. The first proposed to "create more active and solid cooperation with Europe and Japan," the 10th to "maintain a defense posture designed to dissuade the Soviet Union from committing hostile acts." In between were less-than-modest aspirations to promote human rights, reduce the size of nuclear arsenals, curb international arms sales, end apartheid in South Africa, normalize Sino-American relations, terminate US control of the Panama Canal, and achieve an "overall solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem."

While Brzezinski's agenda was as bold as it was comprehensive, it nonetheless hewed to the Soviet-centric assumptions that had formed the basis of US policy since the end of World War II. Zbig recognized that the world had changed considerably in the ensuing years, but he also believed that any future changes would still occur in the context of a continuing Soviet-American rivalry. His strategic perspective, therefore, did not include the possibility that the international order might center on something other than the binaries imposed by the Cold War. The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect.

Using Brzezinski's 10 policy objectives as a basis for evaluating his performance, Vaïsse gives the national-security adviser high marks. "Few administrations have known so many tangible successes in only four years," he writes, citing the Panama Canal Treaty, the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, and improved relations with China. Yet while Panama remains an underappreciated achievement, the other two qualify as ambiguous at best. The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor.

More troubling still was Brzezinski's failure to anticipate or to grasp the implications of the two developments that all but doomed the Carter presidency: the 1978 Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Vaïsse does his best to cast a positive light on Brzezinski's role in these twin embarrassments. But there's no way around it: Brzezinski misread both -- with consequences that still haunt us today.

The Iranian Revolution, which Brzezinski sought to forestall by instigating a military coup in Tehran, offered a warning against imagining that Washington could shape events in the Islamic world. Brzezinski missed that warning entirely, although he would by no means be the last US official to do so. As for the Kremlin's plunge into Afghanistan, widely interpreted as evidence of the Soviet Union's naked aggression, it actually testified to the weakness and fragility of the Soviet empire, already in an advanced state of decay. Again, Brzezinski -- along with many other observers -- misread the issue. When clarity of vision was most needed, he failed to provide it.

Together, these two developments ought to have induced a wily strategist to reassess the premises of US policy. Instead, they resulted in decisions to deepen -- and to overtly militarize -- US involvement in and around the Persian Gulf. While this commitment is commonly referred to as the Carter Doctrine, Vaïsse insists that it "was really a Brzezinski doctrine."

Regardless of who gets the credit, the militarization of US policy across what Brzezinski termed an "arc of crisis" encompassing much of the Islamic world laid the basis for a series of wars and upheavals that continue to this day. If, as national-security adviser, Brzezinski wielded as much influence as Vaïsse contends, then this too forms part of his legacy. When it mattered most, the master strategist failed to understand the implications of the crisis that occurred on his watch.

The most glaring problem anyone faces in trying to assert Brzezinski's mastery of world affairs, however, rests not in Iran or Afghanistan, but in how the Cold War came to an end. Indeed, Brzezinski viewed it as essentially endless. As late as 1987, just two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was still insisting that "the American-Soviet conflict is an historical rivalry that will endure for as long as we live."

B rzezinski was certainly smart, flexible, and pragmatic, but he was also a prisoner of the Cold War paradigm. So too were virtually all other members of the foreign-policy establishment of his day. Indeed, subscribing to that paradigm was a prerequisite of membership. Yet this adherence amounted to donning a pair of strategic blinders: It meant seeing only those things that it was convenient to see.

Which brings us back to Zbig's last tweet, with its paean to American leadership as the sine qua non of global stability. The tweet neatly captures the mind-set that the foreign-policy establishment has embraced with something like unanimity since the Cold War surprised that establishment by coming to an end. This mind-set gets expressed in myriad ways in a thousand speeches and op-eds: The United States must lead. There is no alternative; history itself summons the country to do so. Should it fail in that responsibility, darkness will cover the earth.

This is why Trump so infuriates the foreign-policy elite: He appears oblivious to the providential call that others in Washington take to be self-evident. Yet adhering to this post–Cold War paradigm is also the equivalent of donning blinders. Whatever the issue -- especially when the issue is ourselves -- it means seeing only those things that we find it convenient to see.

The post–Cold War paradigm of American moral and political hegemony prevents us from appreciating the way that the world is actually changing -- rapidly, radically, and right before our very eyes. Today, with the planet continuing to heat up, the nexus of global geopolitics shifting eastward, and Americans pondering security threats for which our pricey and far-flung military establishment is all but useless, the art of strategy as practiced by members of Brzezinski's generation has become irrelevant. So too has Zbig himself.

[Dec 14, 2018] New York Times fraudulent election plot dossier escalates anti-Russia hysteria

Notable quotes:
"... It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." ..."
"... The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.wsws.org

The New York Times published a fraudulent and provocative "special report" Thursday titled "The plot to subvert an election."

Replete with sinister looking graphics portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a villainous cyberage cyclops, the report purports to untangle "the threads of the most effective foreign campaign in history to disrupt and influence an American election."

The report could serve as a textbook example of CIA-directed misinformation posing as "in-depth" journalism. There is no news, few substantiated facts and no significant analysis presented in the 10,000-word report, which sprawls over 11 ad-free pages of a separate section produced by the Times.

The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."

It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."

It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."

Why does it "appear" to be the Kremlin? What is the evidence to support this claim? Among the 8.5 million inhabitants of New York City and another 700,000 in Washington, D.C., aren't there enough people who might despise Obama as much as, if not a good deal more than, Vladimir Putin?

This absurd passage with its "appeared" and "may well have" combined with the speculation about the Kremlin extending its evil grip onto "United States soil" sets the tone for the entire piece, which consists of the regurgitation of unsubstantiated allegations made by the US intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians and the Times itself.

The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times , polls have indicated that the charges of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 presidential election have evoked little popular response among the

[Dec 10, 2018] How Big Brother Grips Americans' Minds to Support Invasions by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . ..."
"... That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. ..."
"... the global international republic ..."
"... (as Gallup's polls prove) ..."
"... only corporations whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its chosen allied governments ..."
"... natural-resources extractions ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... A task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what's left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region. ..."
"... "Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria," ..."
"... by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states. "Time is of the essence." ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... America's future generals ..."
"... all nations except the U.S. ..."
"... They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 ..."
"... CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity ..."
Dec 10, 2018 | countercurrents.org
On November 29th, Gallup headlined "Democrats Lead Surge in Belief U.S. Should Be World Leader" and reported that "Three-fourths (75%) of Americans today think the United States has 'a special responsibility to be the leading nation in world affairs,' up from 66% in 2010. The surge is driven by Democrats, whose belief in this idea has increased from 61% eight years ago to 81% now." This finding comes even after the lie-based and catastrophic U.S. invasions of Iraq in 2003, and of Libya in 2011 (and of so many others, such as Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Sauds created the Taliban in 1979 ). Americans -- now even increasingly -- want 'their' (which is actually America's billionaires' ) Government to be virtually the world's government, policing the world. They want this nation's Government to be determining what international laws will be enforced around the world, and to be enforcing them. Most Americans don't want the United Nations to have power over the U.S. (its billionaires' ) Government, but instead want the U.S. Government (its billionaires) to have power over the United Nations (which didn't authorize any of those evil, lie-based, U.S. invasions).

Not only would doing this bankrupt all constructive domestic functions (health, education, infrastructure, etc.) of the U.S. federal Government, but it would also increase the global carnage, as if the U.S. Government hasn't already been doing enough of that, for decades now.

The leadership for this supremacist craving comes straight from America's top, not from the masses that are being sampled by the Gallup organization, who only reflect it -- they are duped by their leaders. Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2009, for nothing at all but his 'kindly' but insincere verbiage when he had been a candidate) stated this widespread delusional American belief in American global moral supremacy, when addressing the graduating class at West Point Military Academy, on 28 May 2014:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. America must always lead on the world stage.

This had certainly not been the objective of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he set up the U.N. just before his death in 1945; he instead wanted the U.N. to evolve into a democratic government of the world, with elected representatives of each and every one of the world's governments -- to evolve into becoming the global international republic -- regardless of whether or not the U.S. Government approves or disapproves of another nation's government. The idea on which the U.N. was founded was not to involve the U.S. Government in the internal affairs of other nations, not to be the judge jury and executioner of other governments that it doesn't like, nor to dictate what other nations should or should not do within the given nation's boundaries. FDR intended that there instead be democratically represented, at the U.N., each and every nation, and each and every people within that global government, where each of these national governments is (hopefully but not necessarily) a democracy. FDR was just as opposed to dictatorship internationally, as he was opposed to dictatorship nationally , and he recognized that inevitably some governments will disapprove of other governments, but he was deeply committed to the view that a need exists for laws and law-enforcement between nations, on an international level, and not only within the individual nations, and that each nation is sacrosanct on its own internal laws. He respected national sovereignty, and opposed international empire. (This was his basic disagreement with Winston Churchill, then, and with American leaders such as Obama and Trump now.) Unlike President Obama (and evidently unlike the vast majority of today's Americans) FDR didn't want this international government to be an American function, but instead an entirely separate international governmental function, in which there is no international dictatorship whatsoever -- not American, and not by any other country. He knew that this is the only stable basis for international peace, and for avoiding a world-annihilating World War III .

Barack Obama rejected FDR's vision, and advocated for the United States as being (and even as if it already had been for a century) virtually the government over the entire world, which "must always lead on the world stage." Adolf Hitler had had that very same international vision for his own country, Germany, "the Thousand-Year Reich," but he lost World War II; and, then, when FDR died, Hitler's vision increasingly took over in America, so that ideologically, FDR actually lost WW II, when Harry S. Truman took over the White House and increasingly thereafter, until today, when the U.S. commits more invasions of foreign countries than do all other nations in the world combined . Americans (apparently, as shown in this and other polls) like this, and want more of it. Nobody else does. For example, nobody (except the U.S. and Saudi and Israeli aristocracies and their supporters worldwide, which are very few people) supports the U.S. regime's reinstitution of sanctions against Iran, which the U.S. regime is imposing as the global dictator. America's economic sanctions are like spitting into the face of FDR, who had opposed such imperialistic fascism in the more overtly military form when Hitler's regime was imposing it. It's also spitting at the U.N.

This latest Gallup finding displays an increase, but nothing that's at all anomalous as compared to the decades-long reality of imperialistic U.S. culture. For decades now, Gallup's polling has shown that the most respected of all institutions by the American people is the nation's military -- more than the church, more than the Presidency, more than the U.S. Supreme Court, more than the press, more than the schools, more than anything. America is invasion-nation. This is true even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of blatant lies , which destroyed Iraq -- a nation that had never invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States. The American people are, resolutely, bloodthirsty for conquest, even after having been fooled into that evil invasion, and subsequent decades-long military occupation in Iraq, and after subsequent conquests or attempted conquests, in Libya, Syria , Yemen, and elsewhere -- all destroying nations that had never invaded nor even threatened America. Why? How did this mass-insanity, of evil, come to be?

How is this aggressive nationalism even possible, in America's 'democracy'? It's actually no democracy at all , and the public are being constantly fooled to think that it is a democracy, and this deception is essential in order for the public to tolerate this Government, and to tolerate the media that lie for it. This widespread deceit requires constant cooperation of the 'news'-media -- and these are the same 'news'-media that hid from the public, in 2002, that the U.S. Government was outright lying about "WMD in Iraq."

The public simply do not learn. That's a tragic fact. Largely, this fact results from reality being hidden by the 'news'-media; but, even now, long after the fake 'news' in 2002, about the U.S. regime's having possessed secret and conclusive evidence of "Saddam's WMD," the published 'history' about that invasion still does not acknowledge the public's having been lied-to at that time, by its Government, and by the 'news'-media. So, the public live, and culturally swim, in an ongoing river of lies , both as its being 'news', and subsequently as its having been 'history'. This is why the public do not learn: they are being constantly deceived. And they (as Gallup's polls prove) tolerate being constantly deceived. The public do not rebel against it. They don't reject either the politicians, or the 'news'-media. They don't demand that the American public control the American Government and that America's billionaires lose that control -- especially over the 'news'-media.

Honesty is no longer an operative American value, if it ever was. That's how, and why, Big Brother (the operation by the international-corporate billionaires) grips Americans' minds to support foreign Invasions. Americans support liars, and it all comes from the top; it's directed from the top. It is bipartisan, from both Democratic Party billionaires and Republican Party billionaires. National politicians will lose their seats if they disobey.

A good example, of this Big-Brother operation, is America's Politifact, the online site which is at America's crossover where 'news' and 'history' meet one-another. It's controlled by billionaires such as the one who founded Craigslist . Millions of Americans go to Politifact in order to determine what is true and what is false that is being widely published about current events. The present writer sometimes links to their articles, where I have independently verified that there are no misrepresentations in an article. But, like the 'news'-media that it judges, Politifact is also a propaganda-agency for the (U.S.-Saud-Israeli) Deep State , and so it deceives on the most critically important international matters. An example of this occurred right after the U.S. regime had overthrown in February 2014 in a bloody coup the democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and replaced it by a rabidly anti-Russian racist fascist or nazi Government on Russia's doorstep, a regime that was selected by the rabidly anti-Russian (but lying that it wasn't) Obama regime . This Politifact article was dated 31 March 2014, right after over 90% of Crimeans had just voted in a referendum, to rejoin Russia, and to depart from Ukraine, which the Soviet dictator had transferred them to, separating them from Russia, in 1954. (None of that history of the matter was even mentioned by Politifact.) The Politifact article was titled "Viral meme says United States has 'invaded' 22 countries in the past 20 years" , and it was designed to deceive readers into believing that "Russia's recent annexation of Crimea" reflected the real instance of "invasion" that Americans should be outraged against -- to deflect away from America's recent history as being the world's actual invasion-nation. This propaganda-article said nothing at all about either Crimea or Ukraine except in its opening line: "A Facebook meme argues that Americans are pretty two-faced when it comes to Russia's recent annexation of Crimea." It then proceeded to document that the exact number of American invasions during the prior 20 years wasn't 22, and so Politifact declared the allegation "false" (as if the exact number were really the entire issue or even the main one, and as if America's scandalous recent history of invasions were not).

So, it's on account of such drowning-in-propaganda, that the U.S. public not only respect what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower derogatorily called the "military-industrial complex," but respect it above even the U.S. Presidency itself, and above all other U.S. institutions (as Gallup's constant polling demonstrates to be the case).

Here's the reality: The same group of no more than a thousand super-wealthy Americans control both the United States Government and the weapons-manufacturing firms (such as Lockheed Martin), which are the only corporations whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its chosen allied governments . So, these few people actually control the U.S. Government's foreign relations, and foreign policies. They create and control their own markets. This is the most politically active group of America's super-rich, because they own America's international corporations and because their business as owners of the military ones is military policy and also diplomatic policy, including the conjoining of both of those at the CIA and NSA, including the many coups that they (via their Government) engineer. They also control all of the nation's major news-media, which report international affairs in such a manner as to determine which foreign governments will be perceived by the mass of Americans to constitute the nation's 'enemies' and therefore to be suitable targets for the U.S. military and CIA to invade and conquer or otherwise "regime-change" -- such as have been the lands of North Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., at various times. The weapons-manufacturers won't have any markets, at all, if there are no 'enemy' nations that are deemed by the public to be suitable targets for their weapons. 'Enemy' nations, and not only 'allies' (or 'allied' nations), are necessary, in order for the military business to produce the most profits. Overwhelmingly, if not totally, the chosen 'enemies' are nations that have never invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States ; and, so, in order to keep this Government-funded business (the war-profiteering and associated international natural-resources extractions businesses) growing and thriving, what's essential is continuing control over the nation's 'news'-media. As Walter Lippmann wrote in 1921, "the manufacture of consent" is an essential part of this entire operation. It happens via the media. Even Germany's Nazis needed to do that. Any modern capitalist dictatorship (otherwise called "fascism") does. The U.S. regime, being a capitalist dictatorship, certainly does. Physically, Hitler lost, but his ideology won, he won even as nazism (racist fascism) instead of merely as fascism, and this racism is shown because the U.S. regime is rabidly racist anti-Russian ( not merely anti-communist ), and has been so for at least a century. (Maybe it's what Obama actually had secretly in mind when he said "That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." And Trump is no less a liar than Obama, and he continues this aim of ultimately conquering Russia.) They say they're only against Russia's leader Vladimir Putin, but Putin shows in all polls of Russians, even in non-Russian polls, to be far more favorably viewed by Russians than either Barack Obama or Donald Trump are viewed by Americans. This is why regime-change-in-Russia is increasingly becoming dominated by U.S. economic sanctions and military, and less dominated by CIA and other coup-organizers. The actual dictatorship is in America, and it requires participation by its 'news'-media. Demonizing 'the enemy' is therefore crucial. It is crucial preparation for any invasion.

The United States Government spends at least as much money on its military as do all of the other governments in the world combined . Its 'news'-media (that is to say, the media that are owned by, and that are advertised in by, the corporations that are controlled by, the same small group of billionaires -- America's billionaires -- who fund the political campaigns of both the Democratic Party's and the Republican Party's nominees for the U.S. Congress and the Presidency) may be partisan for one or the other of the nation's two political Parties, but they all are unitedly partisan for the international corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, that America's billionaires control, and that sell only to the U.S. Government and to the foreign governments that are allied with the U.S. Government. They also are partisan for the U.S.-based oil and gas and mining international corporations, which need to extract at the lowest costs possible, no matter how much the given extractee-nation's public might suffer from the deal. "Three-fourths (75%) of Americans today think the United States has 'a special responsibility to be the leading nation in world affairs,'" and the actual beneficiaries of this mass-insanity are the owners of those U.S.-based international corporations, the military and extraction giants.

Anthony Cordesman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, headlined on 15 August 2016, "U.S. Wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen: What Are The Endstates?" and he said, "Once again, the United States does not seem to be learning from its past. The real test of victory is never tactical success or even ending a war on favorable military terms, it is what comes next." But he ignored the main reason why these invasions had occurred. America's weapons-manufacturers won't have any markets, at all, if there are no 'enemy' nations that are deemed by the American public to be suitable targets for their weapons. Cordesman is there calculating success and failure on the basis of the myths (such as that the U.S. Government cares about those "Endstates"), not of the realities (that it craves targets). The realities focus upon the desires of the owners and executives of the weapons-manufacturers and the extraction-firms, for ongoing and increased profits and executive bonuses, and not on the needs of America's soldiers nor on the national security of the American people. Least of all, do they focus upon the needs -- such as the welfare, freedom, or democracy -- of the Iraqi people, or of the Syrian people, or of the Libyan people, or of the Yemenite people. It's all just lies, PR. Those invasions served their actual main functions when they were occurring. "The Endstates" there are almost irrelevant to those real purposes, the purposes for which the invasions were, and are, actually being done.

Here's an ideal example of this mass mind-control: On 19 November 2017, Josh Rogin at the Washington Post headlined "The U.S. must prepare for Iran's next move in Syria" and reported that:

A task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what's left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region.

"Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria," the report by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states. "Time is of the essence."

The underlying presumption there was that the U.S. regime has legitimate authorization to be occupying the parts of Syria it has invaded and now occupies, and that Iran does not. But the reality is that the U.S. regime is occupying Syria instead of assisting Syria's Government to defeat the U.S.-Saud-Israeli invasion to overthrow and replace Syria's Government, by stooges who will be selected by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia , and the reality is that Iran's forces there are invitees who are instead assisting Syria's Government against the Saudi-Israeli-American invasion. In other words: this WP article is basically all lies. Furthermore, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America is a front-organization for the fascist regime that rules Israel , and the WP hid that fact, too, so its cited 'expert' was a mere PR agency for Israel's aristocracy. So, this is Deep-State propaganda, parading as 'news'.

Americans actually pay their private good money to subscribe to (subsidize) such bad public 'news'papers as that. The billionaire who happens to own that particular 'news'paper (the WP) , Jeff Bezos, had founded and leads Amazon, which receives almost all of its profits from Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud-computing division, which supplies the U.S. 'Defense' Department, CIA, and NSA. For example, "without AWS and Prime, Amazon lost $2 billion in the 1st quarter of FY18. These losses come from Amazon's retail business. About 60% of Amazon's revenue comes from retail and that's where Amazon is losing money." Amazon is profitable because of what it sells mainly to the Government, but also to other large U.S. international corporations, and they all want to conquer Syria. None opposes that evil goal. Although Bezos doesn't like the Sauds, he has actually been (at least until the Khashoggi matter) one of their main U.S. media champions for the Sauds to take over Syria. It's all just a fool-the-public game. It works, it succeeds, and that's what Gallup's polls are demonstrating. The public never learns. It's a fact, which has been proven in many different ways.

This reality extends also to other nations, allies of the U.S. aristocracy, and not only to the U.S. regime itself. For example, on 27 November 2018, a whistleblowing former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, who is a personal friend of Julian Assange, headlined "Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies" , and he proved that Britain's Guardian had lied with total, and totally undocumented (and probably even totally non-credible), fabrications, alleging that Julian Assange of WikiLeaks had secretly met (in 2013, 2015, and 2016) with Paul Manafort of the Trump campaign. The UK, of course, is a vassal-nation of the U.S. aristocracy, and the Guardian is run by Democratic Party propagandists (paid indirectly by Democratic Party and conservative Tony-Blair-wing Labour Party billionaires ) and therefore fabricates in order to assist those Parties' efforts to impeach Trump and to dislodge Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party's leadership. However, each of America's two political parties (like the UK's aristocracy itself) represents America's aristocracy, which, like Britain's aristocracy, is united in its determination to eliminate Assange -- they are as determined to do that to him, just as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud was determined to eliminate Jamal Khashoggi. 'Democracy'? This? It is Big Brother.

Only if the population boycott lying individuals and organizations, is democracy even possible to exist in a nation. Democracy can't possibly exist more than truth does. In political matters, deceit is always treachery; and its practitioners, whenever the evidence for it is overwhelming and irrefutable, should experience whatever the standard penalty is for treachery. Only in a land such as that, can democracy possibly exist. Elsewhere, it simply can't. The only basis for democracy, is truth. Deceit is for dictators, not for democrats. And deceit reigns, in the U.S. and in its allied countries. Is this really tolerable? Americans, at least, tolerate it.

When Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the far-right Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal editorialized against Obama on 10 October 2009, by saying that "What this suggests to us -- and to the Norwegians -- is the end of what has been called 'American exceptionalism'." Little did anyone then know that after winning re -election upon the basis of such war-mongering lies from Obama, as that "America remains the one indispensable nation" , Obama in February 2014 would go so far as to perpetrate a bloody coup overthrowing the democratically elected Government of one "dispensable" nation, Ukraine; and, then, on 28 May of 2014, Obama would be telling America's future generals , that "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" and that Obama would, in that speech, explicitly malign Ukraine's neighbor Russia. He did it, in this speech, which implicitly called all nations except the U.S. "dispensable." He had carefully planned and orchestrated Americans' hostility toward Russia. His successor, Trump, lied saying that he wanted to reverse Obama's policies on this, and Trump promptly, once becoming elected, increased and expanded those policies. Whatever a deceitfully war-mongering country like this might be, it's certainly no democracy. Because democracy cannot be built upon a ceaseless string of lies.

-- -- -- -- --

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Originally posted at strategic-culture.org

[Dec 10, 2018] A WORLD FEDERATION Chapter 4 Individual Responsibility The Nurenberg Principles by John Scales Avery

Dec 09, 2018 | Countercurrents
1 The training of soldiers

Within individual countries, murder is rightly considered to be the worst of crimes. But the institution of war tries to convince us that if a soldier murders someone from another country, whom the politicians have designated as an "enemy", it is no longer a crime, no longer a violation of the common bonds of humanity. It is "heroic". In their hearts, soldiers know that this is nonsense. Murder is always murder.

The men, women and children who are supposed to be the "enemy", are just ordinary people, with whom the soldier really has no quarrel. Therefore when the training of soldiers wears off a little, so that they realize what they have done, they have to see themselves as murderers, and many commit suicide. A recent article in the journal "Epidemiology" pointed out a startling statistic: for every American soldier killed in combat in 2012, 25 committed suicide. The article also quotes the Department of Veterans Affairs, which says that 18 veterans commit suicide every day.

Obviously, the training of soldiers must overwrite fundamental ethical principles. This training must make a soldier abandon his or her individual conscience and sense of responsibility. It must turn the soldier from a compassionate human being into an automaton, a killing machine. How is this accomplished? Through erosion of of the soldier's self-respect. Through the endless repetition of senseless rituals where obedience is paramount and from which rational thought and conscience are banished.

In his book on fanaticism, The True Believer (1951), the American author Eric Hoffer gives the following description of the factors promoting self-sacrifice: "To ripen a person for self-sacrifice, he must be stripped of his individual identity. He must cease to be George, Hans, Ivan or Tado – a human atom with an existence bounded by birth and death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by the complete assimilation of the individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings. When asked who he is, his automatic response is that he is a German, a Russian, a Japanese, a Christian, a Muslim, a member of a certain tribe or family. He has no purpose, worth or destiny apart from his collective body, and as long as that body lives, he cannot really die. "The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough.

In every act, however trivial, the individual must, by some ritual, associate himself with the congregation, the tribe, the party, etcetera. His joys and sorrows, his pride and confidence must spring from the fortunes and capacities of the group, rather than from his individual prospects or abilities. Above all, he must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group must be equivalent to being cut off from life. "This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes.

Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individualist bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as being a throwback to the primitive." The conditioning of a soldier in a modern army follows the pattern described in Eric Hoffer's book. The soldier's training aims at abolishing his sense of individual separateness, individual responsibility, and moral judgment. It is filled with rituals, such as saluting, by which the soldier identifies with his tribe-like army group. His uniform also helps to strip him of his individual identity and to assimilate him into the group. The result of this psychological conditioning is that the soldier's mind reverts to a primitive state. He surrenders his moral responsibility, and when the politicians tell him to kill, he kills.

2 The Nuremberg principles adopted by the UN

In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal". The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI, which is particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI

  1. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace and humanity:

i. Planning, preparation, initiation or a plan of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Figure 2: Nazi war criminals awaiting judgement at the Nuremberg trials.

Figure 3: You cannot just say "I was acting under orders".

Figure 4: Judgement at Nuremberg

3 The International Criminal Court

The need for an International Criminal Court which would hold individuals responsible for such crimes as genocide had long been recognized, and at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly in Rome in June, 1998, the ICC was established by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. In 2002, after the 60 needed ratifications had been obtained, the International Criminal Court went into force. Today the ICC is located at the Hague, Netherlands.

It has the power to judge cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, provided that no national court is willing to judge them. Although the ICC functions imperfectly, and is opposed by several powerful nations, it is impossible to underestimate its importance. For the first time individuals are being held responsible for crimes against international law.

As we mentioned above in connection with collective punishment, attempts to coerce nation-states by means of sanctions are neither just nor effective. Political Federations, where laws act on individuals, have historically proved to be effective, just and stable. Thus the establishment of the ICC can be seen as a vital step towards a United Nations Charter reform which would transform the UN from a confederation to a federation.

The ICC deserves the wholehearted support of everyone who believes that institutionalized injustice and the brutal rule of military force should be replaced by a world of peace, justice and law. We must remember the words of the Icelandic saga of Njal: "With law shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste."

4 The illegality of NATO

Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles

In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles. Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: "In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO's legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world."

Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called "democratization", or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes.

In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal". The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO: Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

At present, NATO's nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This "nuclear sharing", as it is called, violates Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclearweapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.

Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.' The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.

Must Europe really be dragged into a potentially catastrophic war with Russia?

At present the United States government is trying to force the European members of NATO to participate in aggressive military operations near to Russia. Europe must refuse. The hubris, and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is almost beyond belief, but the intervention in Ukraine is only one in a long series of US interventions: During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy, 1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53; Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58; British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 196065; Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84; Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92; Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present. Egypt, 2013-present.

Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the desire of the ruling oligarchy to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to the economic interests of the US and its allies. Also, the militaryindustrial complex needs justification for the incredibly bloated military budgets that drain desperately needed resources from social and environmental projects. Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European leaders? Why don't they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?

Suggestions for further reading

  1. Matt Wood, Crunching the Numbers on the Rate of Suicide Among Veterans, Epidemiology, April 27, (2012).
  2. Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, Harper and Row, (1951).
  3. Daniele Archibugi and Alice Pease, Crime and Global Justice. The Dynamics of International Punishment, Polity Press, (2018).
  4. David Bosco, Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court's Battle to Fix the World, One Prosecution at a Time, Oxford University Press, (2014).
  5. Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003).
  6. Anne-Marie de Brouwer, Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence: The ICC and the Practice of the ICTY and the ICTR. Antwerp – Oxford: Intersentia (2005).
  7. Karin Calvo-Goller, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court ICTY and ICTR Precedents, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, (2006),

A freely downloadable book

A new 418-page book entitled "A World Federation" may be downloaded and circulated gratis from the following link:

http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf

J ohn Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist at the University of Copenhagen. He is noted for his books and research publications in quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, evolution, and history of science. His 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution set forth the view that the phenomenon of life, including its origin, evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its background situated in the fields of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. Since 1990 he has been the Chairman of the Danish National Group of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. During his tenure The Pugwash Movement won a nobel peace prize. Between 2004 and 2015 he also served as Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy. He founded the Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, and was for many years its Managing Editor. He also served as Technical Advisor to the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988-1997).

[Dec 08, 2018] Now that the banks are calling in their insurance, the EU has to deliver either by screwing down Italy the same as they did Greece or getting the French and German public (or better the whole EU) to bail out the banks.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [295] Disclaimer , says: December 7, 2018 at 12:23 pm GMT

@Miro23

Now that the banks are calling in their insurance, the EU has to deliver either by 1) screwing down Italy the same as they did Greece, or 2) getting the French and German public (or better the whole EU) to bail out the banks.

There is a third option: the banks simply accept their losses, and the bankers make do without their customary bonuses for a few quarters.

[Dec 08, 2018] How False Testimony and a Massive U.S. Propaganda Machine Bolstered George H.W. Bush's War on Iraq - YouTube

Dec 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

https://democracynow.org - As the media memorializes George H.W. Bush, we look at the lasting impact of his 1991 invasion of Iraq and the propaganda campaign that encouraged it. Although the Gulf War technically ended in February of 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion launched by George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq. A largely forgotten aspect of Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq is the vast domestic propaganda effort before the invasion began. We look at the way U.S. media facilitated the war on Iraq with journalist John "Rick" MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper's Magazine and the author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War."

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: https://democracynow.org

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: https://democracynow.org/donate

[Dec 08, 2018] Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

David Baker , says: December 4, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT

Though I'm no friend of Michael Moore, he at least was candid about American "Judeo-Christian" adventures within foreign countries. America needs to pull in its horns, and stop fooling around with other governments.

Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs, in addition to furthering the campaign by Globalists to divvy up the world's resources and labor markets .

Our country is blessed with all the necessary raw materials, manufacturing capabilities, educated and motivated work forces and security to completely support our population, without the need to obtain staple supplies from foreign countries. Developing alternative energy sources should be a top priority, to free our people from the yoke of foreign oil cartels -- or the domestic variety, for that matter. Globalism has done little more than implement the enslavement of populations to mega-corporations, establishing a cabal of non-elected, inviolable potentates who wield tremendous power over our leaders to do their bidding.

[Dec 08, 2018] The zionized MIC and the "biased" truth about Russia's stance towards the West

Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anya , Dec 6, 2018 11:32:15 AM | link

The zionized MIC and the "biased" truth about Russia's stance towards the West:
http://thesaker.is/why-russia-wont-invade-the-ukraine-the-baltic-statelets-or-anybody-else/

"Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal."

The zionized MIC has been prevailing because of money. The uncounted and unaccountable money: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50711.htm

The practice of DoD "violates Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, which stipulates that, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." ... The status quo has been generating ever-higher DoD budgets for decades...

The losers in this situation are everyone else. The Pentagon's accounting fraud diverts many billions of dollars that could be devoted to other national needs: health care, education, job creation, climate action, infrastructure modernization, and more. Indeed, the Pentagon's accounting fraud amounts to theft on a grand scale -- theft not only from America's taxpayers, but also from the nation's well-being and its future."

[Dec 08, 2018] Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mike from Jersey , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT

Good article. You wrote:

There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

I came to the exact same conclusion.

Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia. Then it makes sense.

If this is true (as it appears to be) one can reasonably predict that any time Trump and Putin are about to meet, that a Skripal/Ukraine or other Russia-is-evil event will be staged to derail the meeting.

Let's watch in 2019 and see if this prediction comes true.

If it does, we will know that someone, behind the scenes, is staging these events.

APilgrim , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT
The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.

The globalists continue to waste their time & our money, with this shit.

JLK , says: December 5, 2018 at 5:09 am GMT
@APilgrim

The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.

I'll keep an open mind until Mueller's report is released, but Cohen's connections are allegedly with the mainly Jewish Russian mob. It is unclear what their agenda may have been, but Trump has been a lot nicer to Israel than to Russia.

[Dec 08, 2018] Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment by the voter.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Durruti , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT

"Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment by the voter. This emboldens them. The reality of votes cast and "democracy" past does not does bode well for the people of the United Kingdom, their future as a nation or their hopeful return to sovereignty once called, "Brexit."

Dynamite opening paragraph by Brett Redmayne-Titley.

It defines the vital issue of -To be or not to be – for our Planet's citizens who struggle (or aught to), for functioning Democratic Republics founded upon the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All.

Titley's ending mention of the trials of the Greek nation, and others, is well placed and a tribute to his worldview, that is key to analyzing the situation in any particular corner.

"Britains should consider this arbitrary bullying of Italy and of the UK. Then they should consider the sad EU imposed current condition of Greece. Next, they might dwell on the failed outcomes of previous elections within the nearby EU nations, and how similar movements were defeated in their nation as well. Last, they must pay closest of attention to what is actually in the souls of their own politicians and what they truly support."

In America, we lost our Democratic Republic and our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , in a hail of bullets in the Coup D'état of November 22, 1963.

The Citizen Yellow Vests in France , supported by their 2 leading Resistance Fighters, Dieudonné , and Alain Soral , display the next step forward in the Resistance to Tyranny.

Step 1 – Committees of Correspondence (mainstream media free – websites, & communications).

2. Step away from the TVs – & breathe the free air outside as the Citizen Militia Yellow Vests(Minutemen), regain the streets and stretch their muscles.

3. Final Step: We are Joined by free police, military, even CIA & other police agency employees, in the act of regaining their Countries, with their Sovereignty, and their Honor. We Restore Our Republics!

a. Zionist imperialist/racists to jail and awaiting Trial.

b. Cleanup & rebuilding.

c. Unbought electoral process - no $ allowed in the process (equal media access for all candidates), Debates between the candidates. Let a hundred flowers bloom (what democrat said that?)?

Something like that.

Durruti – for the Anarchist Collective

[Dec 08, 2018] Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition of rich and poor. In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy,

Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for safety, he abhorred capitalism. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT

@Bill Jones Interesting to read how these idealists agree with Christian Gerondeau, 'Le CO2 est bon pour la planete, Climat, la grande manipulation', Paris 2017

Gerondeau explains how many deaths reducing CO2 emissions will cause in poor countries, simply as an example how electricity for cooking will remain too expensive for them, so cooking is done on smoky fires in confined spaces.

" to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." " To intentionally impoverish the world. To what end, I wonder ?

Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition of rich and poor.
In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy, as Tibet was.

These idealistic idiots do not understand how they created the problem they now intend to solve with creating an even bigger problem, their example is the EU, the EU is following this policy for more than twelve years now, since 2005, when the EU grabbed power through the rejected EU 'consitution'.

Capitalism is no more than deciding between consumption and investment, Robinson Crusoë invested in a fishing net by temporarily reducing consumption, he did not go fishing, but made a fishing net, expecting that his investment would make it possible to eat more fish.

Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for safety, he abhorred capitalism.

Dutch 17th century capitalistic commerce to the far Indies, east and west, was not benign. Typically a ship left Amsterdam, near the Schreierstoren, trans 'the tower for the crying', wives, mothers and girl friends, with 300 men aboard, and returned with 100. Most of those who died were common sailors, captain and officers had a far lower mortality, mainly better food.

Our East Indies commerce also was not much fun for the people in the East, in the Banda Sea Islands massacre some 30.000 people were killed, for a monopoly on pepper, if I remember correctly.

But, as the earth developed economically, there came room for also poor people getting lives beginning to look as worth living. Engels in 1844, hope the year is right, described the conditions of working people in GB, this resulted in Das Kapital.

This room for a better life for also the poor was not given by the capitalistic system

In their struggle for a better world for anyone the idealists wanted globalisation, level playing field, anyone should be welcome anywhere, slogans like this.
Globaliation, however, is the end of the nation state, the very institution in which it was possible to provide a better life. Anyone following me until here now can see the dilemma, the end of the nation state was also the end of protection by that state against unbridled capitalism.

As the idealists cannot give up their globalisation religion they must, as those who cannot give up the biblical creation story, find an ideological way out of their dilemma. My conclusion now is 'in order to save our globalisation religion we try to destroy economic growth, by making energy very expensive, in the hope of destroying capitalism'.

Alas, better, luckily, capitalism cannot be destroyed, those who invented the first furnaces for more or less mass producing iron, they were capitalists. They saw clearly how cheap iron would bring economic growth, the plow.

In the country where the CO2 madness has struck most, my country, the Netherlands, the realisation of the poverty that drastically reducing CO2 emissions will cause, has begun. If there really is madness, I wonder.

I indeed see madness, green leftists unable to make a simple multipiclation calculations about costs, but maybe mainly political opportunism. Our dictator, Rutte, is now so hated that he needs a job outside the Netherlands, in order to qualify, either at Brussels or in New York, with the UN, has to howl with the wolves.

At the same time, we have a gas production problem,, earthquakes in the NE, houses damaged, never any decision made to solve the problem, either stop gas production, or strenghten the houses, both expensive solutions.

So, in my suspicious ideas, Rutte now tries to improve himself, at the same time solving a problem: within, say ten years, the Netherlands functions without gas, and remains prosperous; the idea he tries to sell to us. In a few years time it will emerge that we cannot have both, prosperous, and zero emission, but the time horizon for a politician is said to be five years.

[Dec 08, 2018] Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:18 pm GMT

Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005. Israel successfully demanded enormous increases in joint U.S.-Israeli cyber warfare expenditures and benefited from related U.S. contingency planning. Due to onerous secrecy, Americans remain unable to engage in informed public debate about whether what amounts to US subjugation to the Israeli prerogatives driving these massive expenditures should continue.

The US increased spending on the National Intelligence Program by 9 percent in fiscal year 2018 to $59.4 billion. The Military Intelligence Program surged 20 percent to $22.1 billion. NIP plus MIP beat the year 2005 expenditure record totaling $81.5 billion for fiscal year 2018.

The development of secret offensive cyber warfare programs targeting Iran are included in MIP and NIP budgets. According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending.

Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag the United States into war.

by Grant Smith Posted on November 07, 2018 He is director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.

Jon Baptist , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT
There is very little spoken of the foreign threat of the Chabad network. It must be serious opposition if even the CFR "globalists" write about it. ( https://www.theglobalist.com/donald-trump-benjamin-netanyahu-democracy-corruption/ ) When I say threat, I mean global nuclear war, mass starvation, and disease. Chabad is the link binding Trump and Putin advisors. Do you think anyone belonging in this protected "religion" holds any sort of good will for the regular common folk inhabiting the world?
Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 12:59 am GMT
@Art

What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?

Doesn't look good does it!

West Point says NO to Peace!

The warmongering bastard and West Point grad (first in class) -- Pompeo -- says NO peace for Yemeni! Trump says wars are for Israel.

West Point is Jew occupied territory. All US Army generals are pro Israel.

US to keep aiding Saudis in Yemen despite furor: Pompeo

Buenos Aires (AFP) -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Saturday that the United States would continue suppor ting Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen, despite rising outrage over the kingdom.

Speaking from a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Pompeo acknowledged that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen -- where millions are at risk of starvation -- had reached "epic proportions" but said Washington and Riyadh were offering aid.

"The program that we're involved in today we intend to continue," Pompeo told CNN when asked about military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-keep-aiding-saudis-yemen-despite-furor-pompeo-173323301.html

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

p.s. Pompeo defends MBS -- what human trash!

Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 5:15 am GMT
@JLK

All US Army generals are pro Israel

I suspect not, but they answer to politicians. Ditto the CIA.

I suspect not also -- but only privately and in secret, would they be anti-Israel. If they keep their mouth shut, they will have a six figure job waiting for them in the J-MIC. Hmm -- so much for the flag. Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

ChuckOrloski , says: December 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
Fyi, The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/rand-paul-rips-deep-state-for-freezing-him-out-of-/

anon [415] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
"The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder."

Could it not be more clear that Mossad runs our government? Didn't the military swear oaths to protect the US from enemies foreign AND domestic? Oh, and I've given up on Trump. He's an Israel-worshiping ineffective

Anon [340] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
What foreign threats indeed. Out biggest threats come from our own government:

"The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial penalties."

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/04/israel-anti-boycott-act-lame-duck/

But yet these clowns will do next to nothing to stop illegal seizures of white farms in South Africa. Our treasonous government busy working to strip away our freedoms. Don't think they won't use this precedent to outlaw other types of "hate speech." And brought to you by the republican party.

anon [309] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@anon As AIPAC and WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey's Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish Defense League. https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/08/29/treasury-sanctions-foreigners-for-israel
anon [309] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
A few years ago, I had the temerity to write to David McCullough, the biographer of Harry Truman, to tell him I thought he was wrong about an aspect of Truman's character.

McCullough was nice enough to write back. He said he thought Truman had not been malicious but had simply lacked understanding, and in a revealing remark, he acknowledged that Truman "just didn't know enough about [the Palestinians] and their situation" -- which he said, quite accurately, is still true of most Americans. "The great shame," he wrote, "is that a reasonable discussion of the subject remains so difficult to achieve in any public way."

Which brings me to my point: Reasonable discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and particularly of the Palestinian perspective, has always been "so difficult to achieve in any public way," and since the days of Woodrow Wilson .

https://www.counterpunch.org/2002/07/15/the-history-of-anti-palestinian-bias-from-wilson-to-bush/ by BILL CHRISTISON -- KATHLEEN CHRISTIAN

Prevent any discussion , don't expose,don't talk,don't report and when alluded to the issue by someone call it HATE SPEECH or CONSPIRACY THEORY .

Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Fyi, The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/rand-paul-rips-deep-state-for-freezing-him-out-of-/

From the article: Tuesday's briefing on Khashoggi's killing was limited to a small group of lawmakers, including those of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Foreign Relations Committee.

Chuck,

These oversite committees are a joke!

Those committees are cheer leaders for those agencies. Those senators are hand picked to support the Jew Security State.

We can be sure that they work to hide what those agencies are doing from We the People.

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

[Dec 08, 2018] The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).

Notable quotes:
"... The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). ..."
"... Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | thesaker.is

GeorgeG on November 28, 2018 , · at 11:27 am EST/EDT

Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way down, that's for sure.

1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the "declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco important.

2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or wanted.

a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security conference covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."

b. https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1 In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.

c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/ 'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN -- Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one. That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas put it, "de-escalation on both sides."

d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/ Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.

e. http://time.com/5463988/russia-ukraine-trump-putin-g20/?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=1f01df16ac-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_27_07_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-1f01df16ac-85033789 President Trump Could Help Stop a War Between Russia and Ukraine -- But Only If He Will Stand Up to Putin -- Admiral Stavridis (Ret.) was the 16th Supreme Allied Commander at NATO and is an Operating Executive at The Carlyle Group. "

f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important -- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO, at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."

And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get stuck.

Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.

[Dec 08, 2018] One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind

Notable quotes:
"... It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated). ..."
"... It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com
Miro23 , says: December 7, 2018 at 3:45 am GMT
@JLK

One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind.

It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated).

For example, it's still completely unacceptable in middle class British society to support Nationalism (you're a Nazi) or Anglo racial identity (other races are welcome to their identities – but if you're and Anglo you're a racist).

It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section.

[Dec 07, 2018] Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital.

Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT

My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!

There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!

Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.

I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!

Curmudgeon , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@niceland Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then moved to a place where it best serves its owner.

[Dec 06, 2018] The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex's annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers' money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex

Dec 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Originally from: Paul Craig Roberts Laments The Disintegration Of Western Society

In the United States today, and throughout "Western Brainwashed Civilization," only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible.

Everything that every Western government and "news" organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.

The ability to control people's understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US "weapons of mass destruction;" that Assad "used chemical weapons" against "his own people;" that Libya's Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia "invaded Ukraine;" that Trump and Putin stole the presidential election from Hillary.

The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex's annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers' money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex.

Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system, precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.

Is Thomas Jefferson Alive and Well In Paris?

[Dec 06, 2018] Tom Kirkman

Notable quotes:
"... The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and again ..."
"... The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts, people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced. All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior". ..."
"... Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to "confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course, is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo and hiss the proverbial bad guy. ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | community.oilprice.com

Tom Kirkman

Normally I don't quote entire articles, but this is a Panic Service Announcement (and a gentle ribbing).

My comment at the bottom, after the article.

The Psychological Origins of American Russophobia

The main reason so many Americans buy into the anti-Russian craze is not only due to what people are told by the government and media, but by how they think and process information. For if Americans were taught how to analyze and think properly they would not fall for the blatant propaganda.

For example, we are told that the Nazis discovered the secret of repetition as a means of programming people into believing something to be true, but we are not taught why this practice is so effective.

The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and again. After a while, the mind interprets this consistent pattern as proof of truth value. In psychological terms, "schemata" are created by a layering of memories similar in nature over time so that all events associated with the phenomenon are perceived through a prism of previous repetitions. In other words, even if a certain type of behavior is different from the norm it will still be identified as belonging to the typical pattern regardless. It is literally a trick of the mind.

The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts, people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced. All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior".

Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to "confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course, is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo and hiss the proverbial bad guy.

To a certain extent, pattern recognition comes into play as well because in America TV shows and films over the past two decades evil Russian spies and mafia types have figured prominently. The repeating portrayals create schemata which then create stereotypes that frame how we think.

Russophobia, however, will not last forever because it is essentially based upon lies. Truth always wins out over time and fantasy gives way to reality. Despite the censorship on social media and the attempts to silence RT America the truth will eventually triumph.

For gagging the tongue of truth is always followed by a long-suppressed shout that echoes ever louder throughout the ages.

===============================

My comment:

The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
... ... ...
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.

Marina Schwarz
Well, Dr. Paul Whatshisname is obviously an agent of Putin. Did I even need to say this?

On a serious note, repetition works perhaps shockingly well. I was taught in my childhood that Germans are bad because Hitler and Russia was good because twice saviors. Simple and effective. However, with no social media at the time, critical thinking was also available so I could outgrow the propaganda.

A/Plague

... ... ...

Are you on a salary in "Russia Today" or a volunteer?

Tom Kirkman
On 12/5/2018 at 10:29 AM, A/Plague said: Are you on a salary in "Russia Today" or a volunteer?

I try to gently (and if possible, humorously) nudge people to question the "official narrative". CNN / WaPo is far worse propaganda than RT. RT is clearly biased, but they are open about their pro-Russia bias. CNN pretends to be objective "journalism".

And sometimes I feel like commenting in the same vein of this little guy, bouncing all over excitedly:

https://twitter.com/i/status/945219733464469504

Marina Schwarz
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about that, it's so confusing.
Tom Kirkman
16 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about that, it's so confusing.

https://www.rt.com/about-us/

Dan Warnick
16 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about that, it's so confusing.

When I read their articles I am mindful that they are Russian. Having said that, they seem to publish a lot of good content, and much of it is from Reuters and other (mostly) reputable sources. Editorials are free for anyone to research for themselves. Pretty much the same as other pubs.

Rodent
Laying conspiracy theories aside for one moment (and I do so love a good conspiracy theory), let's chat about this Russia panic.

I am not one to panic in general. Sure, I have a food, guns, and water stash in my basement. I'm generally well prepared. There are Russia-is-the-boogeyman theories, and then there are Russia-boogey-man-theories-are-silly theories. Of course they both can't be right.

But where do these theories come from?

I am sure I'm not going to do a very good job explaining my self in the rant that follows. But I'm going to give it a good college try.

I want to talk about the Russia Boogeyman theory. First, there's no way to explain this other than to divulge my age. So I'm just going to spit it out right here and get that out of the way. I'm 40. I've been 40 for approximately 5 years, stubbornly refusing to go further than that. There. I said it. Now that that's out of the way, it's important to note that children are sponges. As such, they are impressionable and in young childhood, traumatic events can have a profound and lasting effect, and even change how someone thinks.

When I was about 10ish, in about 1983, a movie came out. If you lived in America, and likely even if you didn't, and you're over the age of 40 (or if you've been 40 for a while), you've seen it. It's a movie called "The Day After". It was a huge production and it aired on television. The most watched TV movie ever. And ranked as one of the top 10 movies ever by several sources. You millennial whippersnappers will have no clue what I'm talking about. Read on anyway, if you'd like. I'm all inclusive.

The movie was about nuclear warfare, and most importantly, the aftermath. The setting was a small town in Kansas, I think. A small town that very closely resembled my home town, making it particularly impactful (I know that's not a word. Sue me.) to me at the time. In the movie, which although was a complete work of fiction was very realistic, Russia unleashed nuclear weapons. It was freaky. So eerily unsettling was it that I obsessed about it after I saw it. I thought about it every night. I remember being so afraid that in the event of a nuclear blast, I might be separated from my family. I remember pondering if I would rather be obliterated in the blast immediately, or whether I would prefer to be spared instant death only to survive without my family under horrid conditions. I also remember drills at school around that same time that were designed to get people prepared in the event of such a disaster. While it may have done so, it also solidified in my mind that there was a real possibility these events would unfold.

Nearly two years post-freaky-movie, Sting released it's "Russia" song, about Russians loving their children too. Although it was not talked about much at the time, since life proceeded as normal, in my mind I remember thinking that I didn't much care if the Russians loved their children, because they were looking to wipe us off the map. And I lived near the Soo Locks, and I distinctly remember knowing (but I don't have any idea where I came by this information) that the Locks would be a nuclear target in the event of a strike, since it is a main thoroughfare for ships.

You can't undo that kind of fear, no more than you can undo my fear of spiders. I know in my head that spiders, at least where I live, are not poisonous and they cannot harm me. I know it. But my head cannot eradicate the intense creepiness that even thinking about spiders conjures up. Likewise, no rational thought about Russia can completely undo a fear that was borne as a child.

There you have it. My Russia hysteria may be founded or unfounded--I know not. But I do not have the power within me to change this mindset.

Okay Russia-boogeyman-theories-are-silly promoters: fire away.

@Tom Kirkman @Marina Schwarz

Dan Warnick
Great description of what life was like back then, er, so I was told, by older people. Not those of us born in the 60's, er, I mean the 70's, er, the 80's. Yeah, that's it, the 80's!
Marina Schwarz
We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of the Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to pay attention, though. @Rodent , your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The Cold War was a blast, right?

P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by the way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second World War. I shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment industry was absent. End of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.

Rodent
8 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of the Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to pay attention, though. @Rodent , your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The Cold War was a blast, right?

P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by the way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second World War. I shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment industry was absent. End of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.

Makes sense. Not surprisingly the movie makers (supposedly) did not want to have Russia be the first striker in the movie, but they needed to borrow some footage from the DoD, and the govt. refused to play ball unless Russia struck first. The guy who made the movie, while he was making it, reportedly would go home at night literally sick to his stomach at the horrific nature of the movie. It went rounds and rounds with the censors who thought it might not be suitable for families.

Also interesting, speaking of Russia-led propaganda, and coming from someone who has dabbled a tiny bit in white-hatishness, if you google "The Day After Russia" as I did to inquire about the movie, there is actually a Russian movie titled "the day after" about zombies. Yup, let's just bury those search results! It's a conspiracy!!!

There is another interesting thread here about the different search results showing up for different people. What shows up when YOU google "The Day After"?

Rodent
You know, speaking of conspiracies, there is a fairly logical opinion that that movie was designed to scare the bajeezus out of people so they wouldn't vote for Reagan a second term.

[Dec 06, 2018] All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.

Dec 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Moi , says: December 5, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT

@anon and this too?

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

d.h. lawrence

[Dec 05, 2018] What Foreign Threats by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II. ..."
"... Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign. ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

One of the local Washington television stations was doing a typical early morning honoring our soldiers schtick just before Thanksgiving. In it soldiers stationed far from home were treated to videolinks so they could talk to their families and everyone could nod happily and wish themselves a wonderful holiday. Not really listening, I became interested when I half heard that the soldier being interviewed was spending his Thanksgiving in Ukraine.

It occurred to me that the soldier just might have committed a security faux pas by revealing where he was, but I also recalled that there have been joint military maneuvers as well as some kind of training mission going on in the country, teaching the Ukrainian Army how to use the shiny new sophisticated weapons that the United States was providing it with to defend against "Russian aggression."

Ukraine is only one part of the world where the Trump Administration has expanded the mission of democracy promotion, only in Kiev the reality is more like faux democracy promotion since Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself provoked . He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections, in which his poll numbers are currently running embarrassingly low largely due to the widescale corruption in his government. Poroshenko has already done much to silence the press in his county while the developing crisis with Russia has enabled him to declare martial law in the eastern parts of the country where he is most poorly regarded. If it all works out, he hopes to win the election and subsequently, it is widely believed, he will move to expand his own executive authority.

There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

The defection of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, together with the assumption that a lot of anti-Trump dirt will be spilled soon, means that the American president had to be even more cautious than ever in any dealings with Moscow and all he needed was a nod of approval from National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel the encounter. A heads-of-state meeting might not have solved anything but it certainly would be better than the current drift towards a new cold war. If the United States has only one vitally important relationship anywhere it is with Russia as the two countries are ready, able and apparently willing to destroy the world under the aegis of self-defense.

Given the anti-Russian hysteria prevailing in the U.S. and the ability of the neocons to switch on the media, it should come as no surprise that the Russian-Ukrainian incident immediately generated calls from the press and politicians for the White House to get tough with the Kremlin. It is important to note that the United States has no actual national interest in getting involved in a war between Russia and Ukraine if that should come about. The two Eastern European countries are neighbors and have a long history of both friendship and hostility but the only thing clear about the conflict is that it is up to them to sort things out and no amount of sanctions and jawing by concerned congressmen will change that fact.

Other Eastern European nations that similarly have problems with Russia should also be considered provocateurs as they seek to create tension to bind the United States more closely to them through the NATO alliance. The reality is that today's Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union and it neither aspires to nor can afford hegemony over its former allies. What it has made very clear that it does want is a modus vivendi where Russia itself is not being threatened by the West.

Recent military maneuvers in Poland and Lithuania and the stationing of new missiles in Eastern Europe do indeed pose a genuine threat to Moscow as it places NATO forces on top of Russia's border. When Russia reacts to incursions by NATO warships and planes right along its borders, it is accused of acting aggressively. One wonders how the U.S. government would respond if a Russian aircraft carrier were to take up position off the eastern seaboard and were to begin staging reconnaissance flights. Or if the Russian army were to begin military exercises with the Cubans? Does anyone today remember the Bay of Pigs?


renfro , says: December 4, 2018 at 5:53 am GMT

The only foreign threats we have come from the various psychos in the think tanks and special interest lobbies in the US.

As Jean-Jules Jusserand, the French ambassador to the United States
from once said of the US : .

"On the north, she has a weak neighbor; on the south, another weak neighbor; on the east, fish, and on the west, more fish.'

Justsaying , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:01 am GMT
Crying wolf provides a perfect pretext for the Empire's MIC to line the pockets of the merchants of death. In keeping with its time-honored tradition of propping up tyrants kowtowing to imperial hegemonic wishes, America hardly has friends without some military collaboration. Even the recently anointed sh*thole countries of Africa over 50 such countries have American military cooperation agreements under the guise of the infamous AFRICOM and the War on Terror. The number of military bases in sh*thole African countries remain unknown.

..the ability of the neocons to switch on the media

Hard to distinguish between the two really. The "free press" of WMD notoriety, Ghaddafi's "genocidal drive" against Libyan citizens, Iraq's involvement with 9/11? Iranian arms in Yemen that have not massacred children in school buses? Iranian fabricated nuclear weapons? Syrian chemical attacks?

The biggest threats to America come from its "friends"

America is being unwittingly exonerated as an innocent bystander unable to choose her own friends. It so happens America's "friends" share the common trait of pushing for war. In countries awash in petrodollars, purchasing billions of dollars in arms used in Yemen to murder children; Zionists are gifted with American state of the art arsenals to murder Palestinians, including women and children. The biggest threat to America comes from inside the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at will.

anon [355] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:43 am GMT
America's all time #1 phony "friend". -- -Israel.

With a "friend" like Israel, America doesn't need any enemies.

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
I agree with Phil Giraldi on its analysis of US foreign policy. When lying with dogs, you get fleas. This saying holds especially true for the so-called US friends such as the Saudis, Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and the Brits. The NeoZion gang plays President Trump is an open secret. He still employes one of its guiding spirits as national security adviser. As long this Gordian knot is not cut, American foreign policy will not change, and it's getting worse. These folks who surround Trump want war, first with Iran and then with Russia. Their lackey Poroshenko is doing the bitting of Trump and the Zionist regime and their European puppets. The Zionist regime is deeply involved in steering up tensions. Prime minister Wolodymyr Hrojsman is Jewish. Is anyone surprised?
Art , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?

Doesn't look good does it!

Think Peace -- Art

jilles dykstra , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:41 am GMT
Around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.

In my opinion at present the only enemy of the USA is the USA, that part of the USA that failed in getting Hillary elected.

On the European continent a similar situation, even an establishment Dutch politician, of a christian party, Segers, found out that a substantial part of the Dutch see the government as the enemy.

He has the illusion that pr can save him, and his cronies.

anon [121] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
"I am not sure that he ever understood "

He never understood. That was evident the moment he started floating names like Romney for his cabinet. Personally, I sympathize with Trump after what the deep state has done to him and his family, and I even respect the guy for telling things like they are – the poor autistic bastard just can't help but blurt out the truth about things* but he's also not the guy we needed. We needed a fearless, ruthless, and cunning fighter ready to martyr himself for our interests, the people's interests.

*Global Warming IS a scam – the Paris Accords would not decrease CO2 levels even under perfect – near miraculous – circumstances and is merely being floated by the Chinese so they can give off the appearance of doing something while doing nothing, as they have done before.

RVBlake , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT
I am left wondering again, what's so bad about isolationism?
james charles , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT
@jilles dykstra 'One of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to war "against Syria and Russia". '

https://mronline.org/2016/12/13/allday131216-html/

During the election campaign H.R.C., three times, {stupidly?} threatened to impose a 'no fly zone' in Syria – confronting a nuclear armed country.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:41 am GMT
For a peek into Establishment orthodoxy, check out "Why Does America Spend So Much on Israel?" on Beltway Conservatism's Cartoon Network, aka the PragerU Channel. I've recently started auditing classes there via the Videos page here at The Unz Review.

Beyond parody, a pensioned warrior narrates over 3rd grade graphics, telling most Americans all they care to know about what he calls "Izrul." Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could, despite the apparent taboo, leave a comment and get some discussion going with the Team Red NPCs -- it hasn't worked for me.

Moi , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Art I've wondered why we are the way we are. Then I came across this, and I understood:

D.H. Lawrence

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

Moi , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra We failed the moment the "pilgrims" seeking freedom started slaughtering the native peoples.
Minidrop , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II.
wayfarer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Moi

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._H._Lawrence

"You the one who killed our friend?"

DESERT FOX , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
The leading sponsors of terror in the world are Israel and the Zionist controlled U.S. and Britain and NATO and their terrorist mercenaries ISIS aka AL CIADA and all of the various off shoots that have been seeded throughout the world by the satanic Zionists.

The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world , one example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed some 60 million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole country into a slaughter house!

The Zionist attack on the WTC is but another example of Zionist terrorism, where in one fell swoop the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking American knows that the Zionists did it!

The greatest terrorist kabal in the world is Zionism and these terrorists have control of every facet of the U.S. government and at some point are going to provoke a war with Russia that will get the whole world blown to hell and in fact this is what the Zionists want as they believe they will survive in their DUMBS akd Deep Underground Military Bases which they have in the U.S. and Israel and Britain, but they care not for the rest of humanity, that is terrorism in spades!

The enemy is not at the gates , the enemy is in control of the U.S. government and is going to be the destruction of America!

Curmudgeon , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
You can't really pin Ukraine on Trump. Maidan was not spontaneous.

Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign.

The real story on Russia is this: the same people that own every "Western liberal democracy" owned the USSR. The Russians got rid of them, and the USSR collapsed. A new invasion was hatched under the guise of "Westernizing" Russia. When the Russians saw that Yeltsin was suckered, and it was the same game, run by the same people, they got a new sheriff. That sheriff started to sort things out, while the owners fled to the UK and Israel. The lives of Russians got better, as the owners are gradually being stripped of their power. The long and short of it, our owners want their ownership of Russia restored.

All wars are economic wars. Capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin. Both seek to concentrate ownership, just in different ways using different scams.

wayfarer , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT

"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."

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

"Dangerous Tribalism of the Ruling Class"

Z-man , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Justsaying

The biggest threat to America comes from inside the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at will.

Bears repeating.

Z-man , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Art I'd have to give 'Slurpy Dog' Mattis a pass on that list. I think (hope) he is aware of the pernicious power of the Cabal .
Anonymous [295] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
The reason why Trump supports the Ukraine is easy.

"According to the European Jewish Congress, as of 2014, there are 360,000–400,000 Jews in Ukraine."

And there you have it. Wherever or whatever the interest of Jewry there will be the United States standing tall behind it. Let's just say the Ukraine is guaranteed to stay poor. While the Jews get rich!

CanSpeccy , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 6:33 pm GMT

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself provoked. He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections

Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.

JLK , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
There's no use having an empire if you can't exact an economic advantage. Ultimately, most of the events unfolding today are about keeping the loot flowing to lower Manhattan and central London.
EugeneGur , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT

Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends

It's hard to do if you are in fact the worst of those bad friends.

friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices.

The poor choices had been made long before these friends even appeared on the scene. In fact, many of these friends owe their very existence and/or influence to the poor choices the US had made. It's so disingenuous to blame the US politics on someone's influence when the reality is exactly the opposite.

If the US were in normal country prepared to behave in a sensible way it would've picked much better partners. But the thing is the US isn't a normal country; it doesn't want partners – in wants vassals, so it is naturally limited in its choice of friends.

Agent76 , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:47 pm GMT
September 17, 2014 US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World

The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State. US Secretary of State John Kerry was at first reluctant: "We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation," he told CBS News on Sept. 11. "I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity I don't think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter terrorist activity." – Global Post

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35654/US-Pursues-134-Wars-Around-the-World/

Choose wisely America!

RobinG , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:39 pm GMT
Blowback: An Inside Look at How US-Funded Fascists in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-backed-fascist-azov-battalion-in-ukraine-is-training-and-radicalizing-american-white-supremacists/251951/

"Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the nose of a shrugging law enforcement -- chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home."

AnonFromTN , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
The greatest threat to America comes from its elites. Nobody else did as much damage to the country as those greedy thieves.
AnonFromTN , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.

You hit the nail on the head.

Realist , says: December 4, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT

The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

Trump isn't vulnerable he hired the Deep State apparatchiks, Bolton, Pompeo and many others. Trump is a Deep Stater and is doing a great Kabuki theater to dupe his followers into believing his hands are tied.

Rurik , says: December 5, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT
@tzatz

How do YOU expect me (and others) to swallow YOUR position?

with a great gulps of satisfaction, that's how.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine was manufactured by the ZUS State Dept. ((Victoria Nuland)) and John McBloodstain in particular, when Putin upset the Zionist's plans to do a 'Libya' – to Syria.

It was a bloody coup foisted with 5 billion federal reserve note$, of the famous phone call ('Yats is our guy'). Since then the imbeciles in Ukraine have been doing Nazi salutes while taking orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists like Ihor Kolomoyskyi and assorted ZUS Zionists.

The conflict with Iran started when the CIA deposed the duly elected president Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, and installed the brutal quisling Shah in his place. To keep the Iranian people terrorized for decades into submitting to this perfidy, they utilized the CIA and Mossad run SAVAK.

Learn a little history as you swallow.

[Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out? ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
121 Comments Reply

And there are other friends in unlikely places. Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate. The real problem is that the documents apparently don't expose anything done by the Russians.

Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?

So how about it? Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends we have been nurturing all around the world, friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices. Get rid of the ties the bind to the Saudis, Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and yes, even the British. Deal fairly with all nations and treat everyone the same, but bear in mind that there are only two relationships that really matter – Russia and China. Make a serious effort to avoid a war by learning how to get along with those two nations and America might actually survive to celebrate a tricentennial in 2076.

The Alarmist , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections. Why, if the beneficiary was anyone other than a Democrat, much less one named Clinton, someone might actually appoint a Special Counsel to look into it, not to mention the misdeeds of the various agencies and departments who aided and abetted it.
anon [178] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."

MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam worked like this:

They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document); they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the record to the right people

They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama. They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at least not in recent history.

To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:

The government takes cctv footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2) laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much worse.

Johnny Walker Read , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
Like a friends divorce lawyer told him: You go to bed with a nasty bitch, you wake up with a nasty bitch.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 1:46 pm GMT
a plot by the British intelligence and security services to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?

Deep State and Establishment stooge Donald Trump.

There is still a chance for the United States if we

declare independence from the Jewish Empire.

[Dec 05, 2018] INF Treaty End Is Near After Pompeo Gives Russia An Ultimatum

Pompeo is glib and insincere. That a very bad feature for a diplomat.
Dec 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"We must confront Russian cheating on their nuclear obligations," Pompeo said at the conclusion of the NATO meeting, claiming the U.S. has warned Russia to re-enter compliance about 30 times over the past five years. He urged the West to increase pressure, arguing it can no longer "bury its head in the sand" over repeat violations.

But for the first time Pompeo signaled it's not too late to salvage the treaty, despite Trump already saying the US it taking steps to pull out: he said Washington "would welcome a Russian change of heart."

On Oct. 20 President Trump first announced the United States' planned withdrawal from the historic treaty brokered by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan in 1987. At the time Russia's Foreign Ministry slammed the move as "a very dangerous step" which is ultimately part of "continuing attempts to achieve Russia's concessions through blackmail". Russian officials have issued the counter-charge that it is the US that's out of compliance with the treaty.


Ace006 , 9 hours ago link

The US is waging unconstitutional war in Syria without authorization of the UNSC but Pompeo has the effrontery to lecture the Russians on their "lawlessness."

Is there ONE freaking day out of the year when some senior official of the USG is not acting like an utter horse's ***?

Victor999 , 9 hours ago link

""We don't want a new arms race, we don't want a new Cold War,""

Yet NATO and the US are doing everything they can to start one. Threatening others with ultimatums is no way to negotiate new terms.

thisandthat , 8 hours ago link

"doesn't account for China or North Korea as rising technologically advanced threats"

Yeah, nor for israel...

dogismycopilot , 11 hours ago link

Putin should just have the SVR make some fake "proof" Trump is a Russian agent and feed it to the democratic-isis-******-lover party and let them tear Trump a new *******.

Pompeo is an aging **** pig.

thisandthat , 8 hours ago link

Considering it was the democrats who first pushed this muh russian meddlings, can't even see how will the US be able to pull itself out of this (****)hole they dug for themselves...

rtb61 , 11 hours ago link

So the US with a big lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles, wants to blow that up to promote the development of long range stealth cruise missiles, well, I guess there must be a massive profit in it.

The normal rule in a arms race though, the big losers are the countries with the biggest lead in current war technologies, when new technologies enter the fray, negating existing investments and bankrupting that country as the right off their existing lead and having to race to play catch up and take the lead again.

It's like the crazy, the US leads in space, great lets that it into a battlefield and eliminate that lead, why, just ******* why would you be stupid enough, banning war in space protects you lead, promoting war in space ends it. Blocking long range cruise missiles protects the US lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistics missile systems, allowing it ends that lead.

Now in the most idiotic fashion, the US has declared it will arbitrarily leave that treaty without any evidence of anything, now setting the precedent, that any country can withdraw from any treaty with the US for any arbitrary reason because that is the behaviour the US government has set precedent for, why hold any treaty with the US, when they will pull out at any time for any reason. The probable message from the rest of the world to the US, yeah **** off America, we are not Native Americans who exist for you to abuse us https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-promises-on-display-at-native-american-treaties-exhibit (we know it is in the American government nature but **** off anyhow).

haruspicio , 12 hours ago link

What a pompous *** Pompeo is. After his lies about MbS how can I trust him on this issue. Is the US clean? They are certainly not in compliance with the chemical weapons treaty having destroyed no stockpiles as they agreed to do....almost 2 decades after the treaty was signed.

Treaties are ******** unless the parties to them actually implement them and follow the rules. The US seems to believe they have an inherent right to ignore the treaties they sign up to. Why anyone deals with them I have no idea.

dogfish , 13 hours ago link

Donald Trump has lost complete control of his presidency and is being led by the nose by his cabinet,the US will start a new world war.

CatInTheHat , 13 hours ago link

Where did Trump get these Bush 2,Zionist pig holdovers?

After Bush 2 dumped ABM treaty NATO/US have been creeping up to Russias border.

Then in 2014, Obama & Nuland decided it would be a good idea to effect regime change in Ukraine and put neonazi thugs on Russia's border.

EU Israhelli clients all know this is ******** about Russia. But Russia pissed off the Zionist entity in interfering with Yinon/7countries in five years plan.

How LONG are we going to put up with this Zionist attack on our country?

Et Tu Brute , 13 hours ago link

"We don't want a new arms race, we don't want a new Cold War," Stoltenberg added.

A bit like a rapist doesn't want sex, he just wants to **** people.

NATO doesn't want a cold war, they want a real one!

africoman , 9 hours ago link

Correct!!

Predator mindset and US exceptionalism at play

They are asking why Russia not keeping treaty while we violate it?

Secretary of war Mike Pompeo

Washington Seeks 'Pretext' to Abandon INF Treaty - Russian Envoy to US

"...We are accused of violating the Treaty by allegedly possessing a certain 9M729 missile that violates the accord's provisions. However, we do not see any clear facts or arguments that could lead to conclusions of violations," Sputnik Here

Russia, China, Iran challenging global US leadership: Pompeo

"..US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has targeted Russia, China and Iran for opposing Washington's "leadership role". PressTv

Just accuse without any specific evidence.

another

China has simply made no effort to halt its ongoing pattern of aggressive , predatory trade .

Chain election meddling blah balh

NiggaPleeze , 14 hours ago link

US always blaming others while violating every law and treaty known to man.

" I regret that we now most likely will see the end of the INF Treaty," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...

Fixed: " I'm ecstatic that our fabricated accusations allows us to finally see the end of the INF Treaty, which really benefits Russia far more than NATO," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...

chippers , 14 hours ago link

They dont want another cold war? Thats why they are doing everything possible to start another cold if not hot war I suppose.

Anunnaki , 14 hours ago link

We have been in a Cold War since Ukraine 2014

me or you , 14 hours ago link

5000+ bunker shelters and unknown number of hypersonic weapons...US has zero chance.

NiggaPleeze , 14 hours ago link

The whole point of the US strategy is to use short-range cruise missiles to take out Russian retaliatory capability in a first strike, thereby destroying all of those hypersonic weapons, and using their ABM systems to "clean up" any missiles that survived the initial onslaught. The "advantage" of the short-range cruise missiles is that they greatly reduce Russia's available response times - it basically must decide to annihilate the US within 5 minutes of notice of an attack, or face being wiped out with no retaliatory capabilities. (It is worth noting that, in the past, false alarms have lasted for longer than 5 minutes.)

This is by far the most destabilizing, dangerous move, ever - any false blip on a Russian radar can lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. It is infinitely more threatening to humanity than "global warming". Brought to you by the Evil Drumfpster.

Anunnaki , 14 hours ago link

Dead Man Hand

NiggaPleeze , 12 hours ago link

The Dead Man Hand only allows you to respond with capabilities that have survived and that are not eliminated by the ABM. The 5 minutes notice is until the vast majority of your nuclear arsenal is decimated - dead hand (i.e., ability to retaliate if the leadership is entirely decapitated) or not.

me or you , 13 hours ago link

With the black-holes awaiting somewhere in the big oceans it's enough to take the whole US territory.

me or you , 14 hours ago link

If you have not hypersonic missiles you are powerless to dictate.

artistant , 14 hours ago link

The CONFLICT with Russia was orchestrated by Apartheid Israhell

because Russia is an IMPEDIMENT to Israhell's design for the MidEast .

In the process, the Zionist Neocons mortally WOUNDED America

and the CONSEQUENCES are just getting started .

Omega_Man , 14 hours ago link

west would lose arms race against Russia and China and Iran and NK easy... just as they lose all races in manufacturing... cheap labour

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Mike Pompeo ought to be reminded that confrontation with Russia in missile technology is unwise.

Russia has hypersonic missiles. The US doesn't have anything remotely comparable.

beijing expat , 14 hours ago link

Even if they did it wouldn't change the equation. These are doomsday weapons.

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Absolutely not. They can deliver conventional warheads. They can sink carriers anywhere on the planet.

Moribundus , 14 hours ago link

USA do not need hypersonic m. because Russia do not have big navy fleet. Russia is building defense, USA prepares for attack

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Yet... the US is busy trying to catch up with the Russians.

CatInTheHat , 13 hours ago link

The US CANT.

https://southfront.org/why-the-u-s-military-is-woefully-unprepared-for-a-major-conventional-conflict/

francis scott falseflag , 15 hours ago link

INF Treaty End Is Near After Pompeo Gives Russia An Ultimatum

Unless Trump caves or changes his mind as he has been known to do

Moribundus , 15 hours ago link

Is Mike Pompeo Starting to Look Like Kim Jong Un? He is talking like communist leader at Communist party congress.

Mike Pompeo argued that Trump's reassertion of national sovereignty through his "America First" policy would make those institutions function better. "In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for all," Pompeo said at a speech at the German Marshall Fund thinktank. "We're supporting institutions that we believe can be improved; institutions that work in American interests – and yours – in service of our shared values."

He listed a series of current international institutions, including the EU, UN, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that he said were no longer serving their mission they were created.

The remarks were frequently punctuated with praise for Trump, who is referred to 13 times in the text. Pompeo portrayed his president as restoring an era of triumphal US leadership in the world, for the first time since the end of the cold war.

"This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern history," the secretary of state said. "We won the cold war. We won the peace. With no small measure of George HW Bush's effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting."

http://thebrutaltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/popmeo-un-260x200.jpg

Federica Mogherini:

President [George H. W.] Bush used to talk about a new world order, based on shared rules and on cooperation among free nations. I was at high school at the time, and I remember perfectly well the sense of hope and of opening that one could breathe in Europe over these years.

He imagined - and I quote - "a world where the rule of law supplants the role of the jungle; a world in which nations recognise their shared responsibility for freedom and justice; a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak."

My generation believed in this vision, believed in the possibility for this vision to turn into reality, to become true, especially in Europe - a continent divided by the Cold War. We hoped that after the Cold War a more cooperative world order would indeed be possible and indeed be built.

Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly materialised and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the rule of law. The same international treaties - so many in which we are together - that ended the Cold War are today put into question.

Instead of building a new order, we have to today invest a huge part of our energy in preventing the current rules from being dismantled piece by piece.

https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/culture/54773/speech-hrvp-federica-mogherini-harvard-kennedy-school-science-and-international-affairs_en

torabora , 11 hours ago link

well Russia rolling on Georgia and then Eastern Ukraine Crimea put all that unicorn **** to bed. You need to get woke.

pinkfloyd , 15 hours ago link

children

DEDA CVETKO , 15 hours ago link

Ultimatum? To Russia ???????

Um...WTF...? Where's this guy been for the past 300 years?

uhland62 , 14 hours ago link

In his bubble. Being confrontational gets your bubble pierced - someone tell him.

Let it Go , 15 hours ago link

Like many people, I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring. Spurring the creation of more ways to use nuclear weapons is what ending the INF Treaty will do. Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;

In this new environment, the "rationality of deterrence" maintained by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall.

The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or rational from attacking America, and for anyone else, an arsenal of any size will be insufficient. What we are talking about is the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty also known as the INF Treaty which limits short-range missiles. The article below explores the insanity of a new arms race.

https://Who Profits From Ending The Mid-Range Nuclear Treaty.html

attah-boy-Luther , 15 hours ago link

Dear POMPUS *** Pompa-oh:

We will happily comply with your chicken chit terms right after you take ALL of your NATO toys back to the Berlin wall line.

You know the one where your peeps told Gorbachev not one inch east.

Other wise F-U!

Luv,

Vlad

Haboob , 15 hours ago link

Mike Pompeo offered 'military assistance' to Ukraine in Crimea stand-off with Russia, says Poroshenko

'We have full support, full assistance,' Ukrainian president says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-latest-russia-petro-poroshenko-mike-pompeo-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-a8655106.html

Haboob , 15 hours ago link

China and Russia don't want a military arms race but they will get one. The funny part is they will confide in Trump about their woes and he will mimic their desires but not agree with them.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070110615627333632

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070110927788347393

"We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all - at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States. Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal - either now or into the future....

.....China does not want Tariffs!"

Bet hes laughing his *** off and so am i.

uhland62 , 14 hours ago link

China will find customers elsewhere, it just takes more than a day. The US is not the only game on this planet.

[Dec 05, 2018] Manufacturing Official Narrative by C.J. Hopkins

Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles, thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
Dec 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

...First, let's look at a concrete example of our system manufacturing official narrative (aka "official truth" or "truth" -- note quotes ). I'm going to use The Guardian 's most recent blatantly fabricated article (" Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy ") as an example, but I could just as well have chosen any of a host of other fabricated stories disseminated by "respectable" outlets over the course of the last two years. The " Russian Propaganda Peddlers " story. The " Russia Might Have Poisoned Hillary Clinton " story. The " Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid " story. The " Golden Showers Russian Pee-Tape " story. The " Novichok Assassins " story. The " Bana Alabed Speaks Out " story. The " Trump's Secret Russian Server " story. The " Labour Anti-Semitism Crisis " story. The " Russians Orchestrated Brexit " story. The " Russia is Going to Hack the Midterms " story. The " Twitter Bots " story. And the list goes on.

I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others).

The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it.

By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange.

At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing "truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.

Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one), there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.

Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the "official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other "truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened, JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.

The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell, unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of the powerless is always heresy.

For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.

Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such heretics.

Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do (albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story.

As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.

#

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political 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 be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

Manufacturing Truth

James Forrestal , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:26 pm GMT

Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.

The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/ politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be comprehensible, let alone useful.

We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.

This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.

Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors that prevent this.

One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support -- and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly. It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to reevaluate one's worldview based on these.

And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,

Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong" one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're "supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal of loyalty to the establishment.

It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items, unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"

It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)

Kratoklastes , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what he thinks it does.

The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.

There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out properly.

Take this excerpt:

The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.

With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of X .

If X is objectively false, too bad.

Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.

This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).

Obvious Example: Drug Dogs

Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60% and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than a coin toss.

Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).

However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.

Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a coin?

Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.

In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).

More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy

In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).

The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an ordinal voting mechanism.

What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').

Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1 of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems – for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate results).

So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers) promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and wishing will make it so.

Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex – which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).

The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed, the law is changed .

What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the [extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".

American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex " (the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –

This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force, the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new circumstances.

(Emphasis mine)

Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."

See how far you get.

So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side. He should have made the point better.

References (links are to PDFs of each paper)

[1] Arrow (1950). " A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare " Journal of Political Economy 58 (4): 328–346

[2] Geanakoplos, John (2005). " Three Brief Proofs of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem " Economic Theory 26 (1): 211–215

[3] Gibbard (1973). " Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result " Econometrica 41 (4): 587–601.

[4] Satterthwaite (April 1975). " Strategy-proofness and Arrow's Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions " Journal of Economic Theory 10: 187–217.

Brabantian , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth' was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it

Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says

Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:

The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.

The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears repeating

It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."

... ... ...

Kratoklastes , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Tulip

The coin of truth is iron and blood.

That's absolutely, 100% wrong.

Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true. (Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).

Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place because they will fail to conform to ground truth.

Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent' because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences and expectations).

In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of powerful enemies.

RobinG , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:21 am GMT
@James Forrestal

Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States

https://www.occupationmovie.org/

This film shows a great example of propaganda in action. Free to watch now and this link also includes a short version and a trailer.

Jett Rucker , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 3:04 am GMT
When I tell any Truth, it is not for the sake of Convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who Do.

~ William Blake, 1810

polistra , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:33 am GMT
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.

But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia, and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves France.

The scalpel , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
@FB Scientific truth is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example, we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.

So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation in someone elses computer!

Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts .

DFH , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:05 pm GMT
What is truth? – John 18:38
FB , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT
@The scalpel LOL and then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
Tulip , says: December 4, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes Strength is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you believe it or not.

Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and marketing.

The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down and vanquished.

The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain the mental life of mankind.

Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration, they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream when they should have been preparing.

TimothyPMadden , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
What is truth ?

Truth is a word .

After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word, per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used over the years and centuries.

I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or oscillating-contradictions .

Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation

The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.

Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").

By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got instead:

[MORE]

We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as an arm of the entrenched-money-power.

At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.

At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.

Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game is over.

Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X (an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.

So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.

Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .

Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.

So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure that that question is never presented in that way.

After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo -like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in advance).

Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use and control?

Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount received?

Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of parties ?

[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]

Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20% per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."

In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it $10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000 cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?

Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question that theoretically cannot exist.

Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense, while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in more specialized financial dictionaries.

So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent alternative/contrary meaning.

This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.

Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it doesn't .

With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.

With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play . With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .

And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little people of the product of their labour.

As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged) interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective – according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in time.

It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything .

A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit, discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution, etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic arbitrage .

Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two are from the American and English Courts, respectively.

1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think it .

2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels .

3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion :

"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

4.

One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.

I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .

The Scalpel , says: Website December 5, 2018 at 12:34 am GMT
@Tulip " which will always ultimately be resolved by force."

Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.

" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream when they should have been preparing."

Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never arrives.

redmudhooch , says: December 5, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
Truth shall set you free.

For the First Time Since 9/11, Federal Gov't Takes Steps to Prosecute the Use of Explosives to Destroy WTCs

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/911-lawyers-petition-grand-jury-explosives/

In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers.

The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.

Some good documentary films here to watch for free:

http://metanoia-films.org/psywar/

Heres a couple more. Occupation of the American Mind is very good. All of John Pilgers films are great.

James Forrestal , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:58 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.

Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.

[Dec 04, 2018] The Ignored Legacy Of George H.W. Bush War Crimes, Racism, Obstruction Of Justice

Dec 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/04/2018 - 00:05 178 SHARES Authored by Mehdi Hasan via The Intercept,

The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man "of the highest character," said his eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. "He loved America and served with character, class, and integrity," tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama , Bush's life was "a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous good along the journey." Apple boss Tim Cook said : "We have lost a great American."

In the age of Donald Trump, it isn't difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with "class" and "integrity." It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016, calling him a " blowhard ," and that he eschewed the white nationalist, "alt-right," conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said , "firing a shot." He spent his life serving his country -- from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids .

Nevertheless, he was a public, not a private, figure -- one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a brazen way. "When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms," as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued , because it leads to "false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts."

The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came after him - his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent - than much of the political and media classes might have you believe.

Consider:

... ... ...

He made a dishonest case for war . Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland concluded , "was sold on a mountain of war propaganda."

For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait " without provocation or warning ." What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an effective green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in August 1990 and claimed that he was doing so in order "to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland." As Scott Peterson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor in 2002, "Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil supplier."

Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert. "It was a pretty serious fib," Heller told Peterson, adding: "That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist."

President George H. W. Bush talks with Secretary of State James Baker III and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney during a meeting of the cabinet in the White House on Jan. 17, 1991 to discuss the Persian Gulf War. Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP

He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least 408 Iraqi civilians . According to Human Rights Watch , the Pentagon knew the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, "a serious violation of the laws of war."

U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure -- from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as 'collateral' and unintended, was sometimes neither."

Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for "leverage" over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and "epidemic" levels of cholera and typhoid.

By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau, was estimating that Bush's Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including 13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and sewage treatment plants. Daponte's numbers contradicted the Bush administration's, and she was threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing " false information. " (Sound familiar?)

He refused to cooperate with a special counsel . The Iran-Contra affair , in which the United States traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and used the proceeds of those arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, did much to undermine the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Yet his vice president's involvement in that controversial affair has garnered far less attention. "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete," wrote Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh, a former deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower administration, in his final report on the Iran-Contra affair in August 1993.

Why? Because Bush, who was "fully aware of the Iran arms sale," according to the special counsel, failed to hand over a diary "containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra" and refused to be interviewed in the later stages of the investigation. In the final days of his presidency, Bush even issued pardons to six defendants in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger -- on the eve of Weinberger's trial for perjury and obstruction of justice. "The Weinberger pardon," Walsh pointedly noted, "marked the first time a president ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the president was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case." An angry Walsh accused Bush of "misconduct" and helping to complete "the Iran-contra cover-up."

[Dec 04, 2018] The Trump as neocons marionette by Tom Luongo

From ZeroHedge comments it looks like Trump lost a large part of his votters
Dec 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden

Authored by Tom Luongo,

I knew there was something wrong with Donald Trump's presidency the day he bombed the airbase at Al-Shairat in Syria. It was a turning point. I knew it was a mistake the moment he did it and argued as such at the time.

No act by him was more contentious.

It cost me hundreds of followers gained throughout the campaign who wanted to believe Trump was playing 4-D chess. My Periscopes went from being events to afterthoughts.

Those that left needed to believe this because they had invested so much in him.

They had to believe he was playing some deep game with Putin to bring peace to the region.

He wasn't.

I was right and truth is painful. The need for him to be Orange Jesus was so strong they created Qanon and the 'science' of political horoscope as slowly but surely Trump was stripped of all of his power except that of complaining about how unfair it all is.

That day he did something in the moment, with bad intelligence and let fly with tomahawks which Russian and Syrian air defenses misdirected and/or shot down.

Empty President

His goal was to show everyone there was a new, strong sheriff in town.

All it did was weaken him.

The neocons praised him as presidential. They began to get their hooks in him then. But truly, Trump was destroyed before he took office, giving up Michael Flynn, expelling Russian diplomats and compromising his cabinet picks.

Because making war is the only true test of a President to the laptop bombardiers who control foreign policy. With that one act Trump's days as an independent agent in D.C. were numbered.

And since then the hope has been that given the enormity of the opposition to his Presidency he was still fighting for what he campaigned on -- no nation building, bring the empire home, protect the borders, and clean up the corruption.

He's made a few minor changes but not enough to change the course of this country and, by extension, the world.

The people want this change. Those with the power don't.

G-20 Ghost

So here we are with a pathetic Trump outclassed at the G-20, a meeting he should dominate but instead is ushered around like a child, given poor earpieces and looking a little lost. He's only allowed to have one meeting of note by his handlers, with China's Xi Jinping.

Because that meeting wasn't going to end with anything damaging to the long-term plan. Trump's tariff game is tired and all it will do is hasten the demise of U.S. competitiveness in the very industries he wants us to be competitive in.

Because tariffs are a band-aid on the real problems of bureaucracy, corruption, waste and sloth within an economy. They are not a product of China stealing our technology (though they have).

And that $1 trillion deficit Trump is running? Music to the ears of the globalists who want the U.S. brought low. More military spending. More boondoggles the banks can cut a nice big check to themselves for with funny money printed without risk. This can go on for a few more years until it doesn't matter anymore.

Trump's folding on meeting Putin is the final nail in his presidency's coffin. He's not even allowed to make statements on this issue anymore. That's for Sarah Sanders, Mike Pomposity and John Bolt-head to do.

You know, the grown-ups in the room.

No. Putin and Trump met once when they weren't supposed to and since then Trump has been getting smaller and smaller. Sure, he held some rallies for the mid-terms to shore up his base for a few weeks while the Democrats stole more than a dozen House seats, three governorships and a couple of Senate seats, but hey he's still working hard for no pay.

Please.

Trump needed to show some real moral courage and speak with Putin about the Kerch Strait incident like men, not sulk in the corner over a couple of ships. And yet his still throws his full support behind a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman because arms sales and Iran.

Putin, for his part, makes no bones about doing business with the Saudis. He knows that bin Salman is creating a quagmire for Trump while driving the U.S. and European Deep State mad.

Hence: https://www.youtube.com/embed/sggVhrwSAFs Putin refuses to apologize for thwarting our plans to overthrow him in Russia and steal Ukraine.

Time Enough to Win

For this Secretary of Defense James Mattis calls Putin, " A slow learner." This is a flat-out threat that Mattis has more coming Putin's way. But in fact, it is Mattis who is the slow learner since he still thinks Putin isn't three steps ahead of him.

Which he is. The game is all about time and money. And thanks to Mattis and, yes, Trump, Putin will win the war of attrition he is playing.

Because that is what has been going on here from the beginning. Iran, China and Russia know what the U.S. power brokers want and they knew Trump would always cave to them. So, they knew exactly how to get Trump to over-commit to a strategy that cannot and will not ever come to fruition.

I warned that Trump's blind-spot when it comes to Iran was his weakness. I warned that he would eventually justify breaking every foreign policy promise to fulfill his plan to unite the Sunni world behind him and Israel by giving them Iran.

The End of the Beginning

Welcome to today. And welcome to the end of Trump's presidency because now he is pot-committed to regime change while the vultures circle him domestically. He has become Bush the Lesser with arguably better hair.

He has alienated everyone the world over with sanctions and tariffs, hence his desire to " Get me out of here " as the G-20 wound down. No one believes he matters anymore. By tying himself to the Saudis and the Israelis the way he has he, the master negotiator, has left himself no room to negotiate.

And that is leading to everyone defying him versus cutting deals to carve up the world, end the empire and come home.

Trump is not leading here. He is being led. And change requires leaders. He has been led down the path so many presidents have, more militarism, more empire. Because when you're the Emperor everyone is your enemy. This is the paranoia of a late-stage imperial mindset.

It certainly is the mindset of Trump's closest advisors - Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo.

So Trump's "America First' instincts, no matter how genuine, have been twisted into something worse than evil, they are now ineffectual keepers of the status quo fueling ruinous neoconservative dreams of central Asian dominance.

And he has no one to blame but himself.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_qlE7PPH9C4

* * *

To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 230 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.


Brazen Heist II , 1 hour ago link

The Orange Orangutan had his chances to make a difference. He instead chose the Neocunts and his ego.

There will be no more "voting" oneself out of this shitshow. Trump was the last peaceful chance.

It could have been worse, I guess. At least there's that for consolation.

The silver lining to the Trump phenomenon is that the Deep State is at war with itself, and this is bringing down the evil empire from within.

And lastly, Trump was always the symptom, not the cause of all this malaise. A malaise that only Americans can fix.

WTFUD , 1 hour ago link

His nose is wedged right up Adelson's & Bibi's ring-hole.

Even as we speak now, 100 drones crossed over from Turkey into Syria with French experts modifying them to accept warheads of a chemical nature. Simultaneously the innovative British military are providing miscellaneous WMD's/support to Jabhat-Al -Nusra in Idlib.

Time for Putin/Russia to take these cockroaches/vermin out in quick time, for their own good.

Trump's grasshopper mind could be construed for severe Alzheimer's.

Bokkenrijder , 2 hours ago link

Trump boasted of how HE would "Make the US Military Great again" (as if it wasn't too big to begin with..) and spent $16 billion EXTRA on 'defence,' yet now he suddenly flip-flopped and calls defence spending "crazy."

https://www.rt.com/news/445463-trump-laments-defense-budget/

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069584730880974849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

How mentally UNstable and completely UNhinged is Dufus J. Chump?

Bokkenrijder , 2 hours ago link

Spot on, I completely agree with Luongo, and #metoo have been saying this for a long time.

Trump's unstable and unhinged waffling, lying and flip-flopping (i.e. "4D chess") is finally beginning to catch up with him and his presidency will not be marked with him being the one who drained the swamp, but a presidency marked with a trail of destruction.

He has talked himself into so many corners, that it will be impossible to back out of those corners....unless of course he turns the volume of his bullshitting, lying and waffling up to 11.

"You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."

It's easy to fool dumb American Trumptards, but it's not easy fooling the Russians, the Europeans and the Chinese. They see right through his fake bravado and ********.

Expat , 3 hours ago link

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race," Trump wrote. "The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"

Another classic Tweet from Captain Bonespurs. No wall, no change to healthcare, no immigration policy, no amazing trade agreements, no slavery, no mandatory mullets, no mandatory bible study at school, no burning of witches. And now he is talking about reducing the largest military budget in history.

You guys need a box of tissues?

MAGA

I am Groot , 6 hours ago link

Trump is finished. He had two years to replace Sessions and Rosenstein and have someone at the DOJ appoint a Special Councils for each item to look into:

The Clinton Foundation

Uranium One Deal

Hillary's Email Server

The murder of Seth Rich

The Benghazi Consulate Disaster

The Democrats computer scandal with the Iwan brothers.

Bill Clinton giving China classified missile and sub technology

The unelected Deep State actors controlling the country.

Q is a total ******* fraud. Trump has 3 weeks before he is assraped and left bleeding on the floor by the Democrats and the RHINO's in the senate. If he gets impeached, Pence will be impeached and Nitwit Nancy becomes POTUS. And within 2 months of that happening, we will have full balls out, open Civil War II.

[Dec 04, 2018] There is direct censorship and indirect censorship

Notable quotes:
"... This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic. ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

We do not really have freedom of speech. Say "ni ** er" once and you can lose a job of thirty years. Or criticize Jews, Israel, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, or transsexuals.

There is direct censorship and indirect censorship. Direct censorship is what China has. It prohibits certain kind of speech, period. Indirect censorship is what the US has in increasing measure. You can say whatever, but if you say the 'wrong' thing, the consequences are so dire(especially economically) that you are effectively tarred & feathered, shunned and destroyed. Rick Sanchez found out how this works after he said Jews dominate in the media. And CNN recently fired a black guy for defending Palestine at the UN.

Marc Lamont Hill dared to mention that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map and that the current Zionist regime uses Apartheid Policies in Occupied West Bank as continuation of Western Imperialism that wages war on indigenous nationalism of the Palestinian people. Jew-run CNN got rid of him, which goes to show that Jews are holier than blacks(and certainly the long-suffering Palestinians).

Personally, I think there are some cases where firing-based-on-speech is warranted. If an organization is inherently ideological, then it has every right to hire or fire people based on their views and convictions. So, if National Review feels that one of its writers is too leftist, he may be fired. Or a person that seems hostile to Zionism may be fired by Commentary Magazine that is committed to Israel First Policy.

But most professions are non-ideological, and it seems utterly wrong to fire someone on the basis of creed, conscience, or conviction. And progressives would have agreed with this position in the 50s when many communists and fellow-travelers were either fired/blacklisted or threatened with such, not least in Hollywood. Also, as long as a person performs his duties well at work, what does it matter what he believes in his personal life? If one's personal creed, ideology, or faith is the basis of whether he can have a job or use financial services, then we no longer have a free society. According to Jewish-controlled PC, in order for you to be able to work and live, it means you can't have certain personal beliefs. Personal conviction and creed have been professionalized, i.e. no work and wages for people with certain views.

Now, imagine if a business fires anyone suspected of being a Zionist on the basis that Zionism is imperialism and commits 'genocide' against Palestinians. Would Jews tolerate this? Of course not. And I would agree with Jews. No Jew should be fired for his Zionist beliefs EVEN IF the owner of the business believes Zionism is evil. Richard Dawkins is virulently anti-religious and believes religious faith is a mental disease of ignorance and hatred. But if he owned a trucking company, should he fire people on the basis of their faith because he believes religion is a 'hate system of the mind'?

[MORE]

Now, there are certain exceptions. Certain jobs are publicity-oriented and involve putting forth an image. So, if a company wants to project a certain kind of image or message and IF its representative or spokesman or spokeswoman is associated with certain kind of ideology, I can see why the company would want to let that person go. If a company is about Family Values and if it turns out that its representative is a wild swinger and promotes promiscuity, I can see why the company would let that person go EVEN IF the person acts wild in his personal life. But most jobs are not publicity-related, and it is simply wrong to deny someone work and wages based on what he believes in his personal life.

This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic.

Now, the Chinese may be pushing such a rule because they see the Free West as decadent and degenerate as a result of excess freedom. But this is where the Chinese would be wrong. The West rotted from lopsided freedom that favored the power and expression of certain groups over others. West lost its sense of balance because voices of certain groups and interests were effectively silenced. It's like ecology. If you get rid of certain species, the natural balance goes out of whack and things fall apart. If you get rid of predators, it may seem good for the prey animals, but in time, the herbivores multiply and eat up all the vegetation and destroy their habitats. So, there has to be a balance of prey and predators in nature. The problem of EU is that following WWII, the Right was effectively silenced because it was associated with Nazism. Thus, leftist elements grew too strong and out-of-control. Now, leftism is invaluable to modern society, but it needs to be balanced by rightism that is also essential to social equilibrium. But suppression of the right led to overgrowth of leftism that led to crazy stuff like May 68 lunacy that paved the way for current degenerate France. When left and right were both well-represented, they had to compete to remain healthy and strong. But once the left was allowed to totally dominate culturally and ideologically, it grew decadent and degenerate from corruption and self-satisfaction.

So, if China thinks the West became crazy due to excess of free speech and freedom in general, it would be wrong. The West grew sick from suppression of rightist freedoms and expressions in favor of leftist ideology and obsessions. In the West, even the far-left was protected in academia and media BUT the far-right was banned. Only the wussy cuck-right and bland 'white bread' right were tolerated. If any rightist lurched slightly more rightward, he was denounced as 'far right'. As Jonathan Haidt has argued, Western academia is suffering from lack of real discourse and back-and-forth argumentation. Because the leftists are protected from challenge by rightists, the former has grown lazy, corrupt, decadent, and flabby. Their hysterics are really about cowardice and unwillingness to face real challenge from the Right. They demand protection from being 'triggered' by wrongthink or 'hate speech'. They rarely directly address the voices on the Right. They just go for lazy short-cut of denouncing others as 'racist' or 'nazi'.

But the problem isn't merely ideological but ethnic. When Wasps(or Anglo-Americans) ruled America, it was fair game to notice that (1) Anglos got the power (2) Anglos got the privilege (3) Anglos got the connections (4) Anglos hogged the prestige. So, despite the great power of Anglos, they came under scrutiny and criticism, not least by reformist Anglos who thought criticism and self-criticism were good things. Thus, there was a lively debate among Wasps, Irish Catholics, various ethnics, Jews, and others. Though blacks were suppressed for most of US history, they too became vocal and offered their perspective and made demands that had validity. In terms of social debate, the period from mid 50s to the mid 80s were probably the golden age of free speech and debate. With each year, there was more push for free speech, and many sides had their say. But the worrying development in that period was the growing sacralization of Jews and blacks. It was one thing to allow Jews and blacks to make their case and join in the national debate. Surely, Jews and blacks had their own grievances and legit demands. But, just as undeniable was the fact that Jews and blacks also caused a lot of problems that harmed other groups. Jewish role in US foreign policy led to fiasco in the Middle East, especially at cost to Palestinians. And even though the Civil Rights Movement was a great event in US history(and there's no denying the injustices done to blacks), it was also true that blacks posed a threat to other races because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive by nature. So, once blacks got equal legal protections, they used much of their freedom to attack, rape, rob, and murder other peoples, leading to white flight among not only white conservatives but white liberals and Jews. So, in a truly free society, not only would Jews and blacks get to have their say against goyim & whites but goyim & whites would get to air their grievances against Jews and blacks. That way, all sides would say their piece and all sides would be checked and balanced by healthy and constructive counter-criticism.
But the consecration of Jews and blacks as holy-schmoly groups made this nearly impossible. So, while Jews could scream about 'anti-Semites' and 'Nazis' endlessly -- Jews now cry 'nazi' like the kid cried 'wolf' -- , we are not allowed to notice Jewish power, Jewish abuses, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. And no matter how much crime and violence blacks commit, we are supposed to see Negroes only through the rose-tinted glasses of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and MLK sermons. And no matter how many whites(and non-blacks) fall victim to black robbery, beatings, rapes, and murders, we are supposed to wake up Groundhogday-like and dream of supposedly angelic Emmett Till.

When a group is sacralized in a supposedly secular society, the effect is essentially theocratic. Jews and blacks are holy-schmoly in the US, and so, we can't have a honest debate about the problems they cause. We can't talk about Jewish role in communism, Zionist role in Middle East Wars, globalist Jewish economic looting of Russia in the 90s, and Neocon recruitment of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. And it doesn't matter how many times blacks burn down cities and assault/rob people. It is simply 'racist' to notice that blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, tend to commit far more crime and violence than other groups. US has become essentially an ethno-theocracy where we must always speak of Jews and blacks in hushed tones.

Of course, homos joined Jews and blacks in the holy-schmoly pantheon. Why? Because Jews control media, academia, finance, and deep state. And Jews decided homos are their perfect ally as fellow high-achieving minority elites. Because homos were made holy-schmoly(and associated with holier-schmolier Jews), even cultural conservatives clammed up about the Homo Agenda. They were afraid of being labeled 'homophobic', an especially bogus term cooked up by Jews to imply that if you don't sufficiently honor and praise homos, you are suffering from mental malady of phobic proportions. And so, homos & trannies and fecal penetration & penis-and-ball-cutting were associated with 'rainbows' and 'pride'. Indeed, 'gay pride' simply became 'Pride', as if to suggest the essence of pride = homo buggery and tranny dick-cutting. And if you found homo-fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting to be gross and sick and said so, you were blacklisted and fired worse than any Jewish communist during the so-called 'McCarthy Era'. At least the HUAC blacklists ended in a few yrs. These Jewish led PC blacklists last forever because Jewish Power has a near-Stalinist grip on media, academia, and deep state.

The fact is Homomania-as-neo-religion(that festoons churches with 'gay colors') and 'Gay Marriage' would never have become New Western Values IF there had been real free speech that allowed all sides to have their say. If real free debate had been allowed on the Homo Agenda, the lies and falsehoods could easily have been exposed. But, the Jewish-controlled media used the 'rainbow' idolatry to elevate Homo-worship as a new religion in the West. If you were not with the sacred program, you were a blasphemer, a 'homophobe' who must be econo-excommunicated from work & wages. Or a bakery must be sued out of existence by the 'gay cabal' with the full backing of Jewish Supremacist law firms. Jewish Power treats decent moral bakeries like Zionists treat Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Jewish Power says 'my way or the highway'.

In Europe, a continent with no legal protection of free speech, Jewish pressure led to criminalization of speech deemed offensive to Jews and homos(and even African migrant-invaders). In the US, where Constitution guarantees free speech, the culture of open discourse was destroyed by indirect censorship and ethno-homo-theocracy. Even though Jewish Power couldn't ban free speech, its control of media and finance meant they could destroy anyone or any group that dared to be politically incorrect toward Jews, blacks, and homos. Thus, anyone who wanted to keep his job or reputation had to clam up about certain things, no matter how true or based on facts. Also, the sacralization of Jews, blacks, and homos meant that they could spew any amount of hateful, rabid, and virulent venom at goyim, whites, Christians, straight people, and etc. BUT they themselves were PROTECTED from critical speech that dared to expose their corruption, abuses, and fraudulence. This is why the West grew sick. Not from freedom but lopsided monopoly of freedom for certain groups, esp. Jews, blacks, and Homos as the Holy-Schmoly Three.

Now, one could argue that China's censorship is preferable to American censorship because China is about Chinese nationalists ruling over Chinese people. So, the main theme of censorship is "Is it good for China as a whole?" In contrast, the US is a nation where the Jewish 2% rules over 98% that is goyim. So, the central theme of American Censorship is "Is it good for the 2% at the expense of the 98%?" Also, if China is about Chinese Majority Pride, the overwhelming theme for the White American Majority is White Guilt and White Shame. So, while Chinese government boosts Majority Chineseness, American government suppresses Majority Whiteness(and even pushes policies to turn the white majority into just another minority, as already happened in California, increasingly the land of oligarchs and helots, the vision of BLADE RUNNER).

Still, censorship will hurt China too in the long run because a nation that penalizes conscience and courage will result in increasing conformism and crassness.

JLK , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:53 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck

We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here.

Have you ever watched The "History" Channel?

neutral , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:38 am GMT
@Simply Simon

America's freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty

Where do you get your news from, because America has absolutely neither of those. And please spare the usual bullsh!t argument "censorship is only if the government does it". America is HEAVILY censoring anyone who does not accept its hard left ideology, you speak out against this you get deplatformed, you get censored, you lose your job and you life is pretty much destroyed. The same applies to religion, you reject the near official religions of homosexuality and racial equality and you will be punished for it.

[Dec 02, 2018] CIA Officials Continue Efforts To Marginalize President Trump

Dec 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Caius Keys , 6 hours ago link

CIA Officials Continue Efforts To Marginalize President Trump Via Washington Post

There is a particular transparency of motive which becomes clear, and reconciles all inquiry, when an interested observer accepts a particular media framework:

Hadenough1000 , 4 hours ago link

Arab brennan

was arab Obamas weaponizing king

dumbocrats you put Arabs in total power??? 😳😳

After the rapist Clinton's Arabs burned 3000 Americans to death???

what possibly could go wrong😜😜

Caius Keys , 4 hours ago link

Bushes love SA long time https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/12/its-time-to-stop-holding-saudi-arabias-hand-gcc-summit-camp-david/

CatInTheHat , 6 hours ago link

"the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear that Islamic terrorism is no longer a threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets . For all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating terrorist strikes or defeating them in counterinsurgency warfare"

Excuse me,but WTF??

It's the US,NATO, Israhell and Saudis that created ISIS, with the above mentioned spending BILLIONS to combat ISIS in Syria.

The war on terror is a hoax. The lame exploitation of Arabs and Islam to manufacture consent for war on Iraq, starting with Mossad planting of low yield thermal nuke weapons that brought the Towers down..Saudis were the patsies.

All of this with blessing of Zionists banksters and US Treasury& Fed Reserve.

[Dec 02, 2018] MSM are the biggest tool of passive compliance and propagandizing by a relatively docile population

Dec 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

PAX November 30, 2018 at 10:34 am

A timely article. Main Stream Media (MSM) are the biggest tool of passive compliance and propagandizing by a relatively docile population. I open the CNN URL and it is like reading the neocon version of 1960's Pravda. The Australian government should be doing more to get Julian Assange out of his current predicament. The 4th Estate is withering on the vine to comply with lobby dictates.The Founders had a reason to mention this entity in the Constitution.
Fran Macadam , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:37 am
Donald Trump used to love Julian Assange's WikiLeaks media outlet. Said so over a hundred times. Sad!
Sid Finster , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:10 am
To be fair to the MSM, they know that they are safe from persecution, as they never print a word that the establishment does not want to see published.
Fran Macadam , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Now here are some purveyors of Fake News, all evidence-free assertions proven totally false:

"But the evidence increasingly points to Assange having made himself a willing tool of Russian Intelligence. There's a huge difference between pursuing the public's right to know and and acting as the clandestine agent of an adversarial foreign power."

"He's a spy, a saboteur and a rapist. I'm all in for the free and adversarial press but when a reporter is an actual criminal, lock him up."

Fran Macadam , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:54 pm
"I don't think that it's the content of his email release that got Assange in hot water. It was his calculated timing of the release to cause the most harm to a candidate's run for President."

Right, journalists should always withhold true information about a politician and the political processes they engage in from the public, so that the voters will remain deceived. Well, I guess, the politicians YOU favor.

polistra , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:47 pm
The press does not have to be afraid. The press is Deepstate. The Department of "Justice" is Deepstate. They are the same machine, working in beautiful synchrony to obliterate civilization.
SteveK9 , says: December 1, 2018 at 9:03 am
Peter the 'press' is obviously not worried about losing their ability to inform the public of the truth, because they no longer view that as their function. They are tools of propaganda for the oligarchs that rule America. There are a few people like yourself, who want to inform the public, but you represent a (shrinking) minority.
Bill Lawrence , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:05 am
It's funny how Ds claim Assange helped seal Hillary's fate by releasing the emails without recognizing the reality that the emails needed to exist in order to be released.

Why would you vote for someone who admitted to doing the things described?

BTW, should "John Doe" the leaker of the Panama Papers be tracked down?

Chef , says: December 1, 2018 at 4:08 pm
This conundrum is partially the result of picking and choosing the enforcement of laws based on political affiliation or beliefs.
We are not a republic now.
The individual has been declared an enemy of GovCo, the EstGOP and the Democrat People's Parties.

[Dec 01, 2018] The New York Times As Corrupt Judge And Jury

Notable quotes:
"... We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers. ..."
"... Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war. ..."
"... The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign." ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.

Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.

The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.

In a massive Times ' article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.

They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the Great Plains.

With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's all been proven.

Mueller: No collusion so far.

This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.

The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign."

But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."

The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."

This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of this very New York Times article?

Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this piece.

A Banner Day

The 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.

On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."

Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)

Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell "eyeballs."

For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with "millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.

The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the difference.

This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the credibility of the entire article.

It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton campaign. A detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."

Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?

What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that evidence.

This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.

Errors of Commission and Omission

There are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because they would disturb the narrative:

Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.

Distorts Geo-Politics

The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all imperial powers.

The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014, omitting crucial evidence of a U.S.-backed coup.

The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.

The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were statistically insignificant at less than one percent.

Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests without Russia telling them what to do.

Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the club, such as a website like Consortium News.

But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly unusual move of apologizing to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of Russia-gate? Tags Politics

[Dec 01, 2018] Google is very evil, with its advertising price controls, automated stealing of data, preferences for its own services in search results over more popular competitors, and in many other ways. But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting.

Dec 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:41 am GMT

I'm familiar with information retrieval tech and worked for a small non-U.S. search engine that was acquired by a major American search engine (not Google) in the late 20th century. I've kept up with things as much as one can do from the outside since then.

I do not buy the conspiracy angle here. I believe Google when they say that they are relying on automated algorithms.

You cannot really compare Google with any other search engine. DDG is a guy in his pajamas coding it all by himself (and I respect that). Bing on the other hand has a good team of talented information retrieval engineers, but they are nowhere near as well staffed as Google

In addition, a lot of Google's quirks derive from the fact that they are the big guys. Hackers and spammers and black hat SEOs target Google, looking for exploitable patterns. Nobody cares how they rank in Bing and DDG, so nobody targets them. Google thus has to plug the dike in all kinds of ways that the other search engines don't have to worry about.

Google is very evil, with its advertising price controls, automated stealing of data, preferences for its own services in search results over more popular competitors, and in many other ways. But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some higher level component in their search software that is intended to combat black hat SEO is inadvertently skewing results in a way that seems to favor the left, in the same way that AI software tends to come to the conclusion that blacks commit a lot of crime and are not the best employees, although nobody programmed it to do that. And it is possible that when the skew is anti

Google Suggest was throwing out "Islamists are terrorists," "blacks are not oppressed," "hitler is my hero," "white supremacy is good," and so on.

Google is micro-gaslighting again, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review

Tyrion 2 , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT

@anonymous It is an explanation that makes more sense to me than that Google is trying to hide it while Vox is trying to bring attention to it.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/29/18117906/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-2017-life-expectancy

meh , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

It is an explanation that makes more sense to me than that Google is trying to hide it while Vox is trying to bring attention to it.

You are being remarkably obtuse.

Google is for the masses; what they do or don't do actually matters in terms of public perception.

Vox is for the policy elite and will make no impact on the public consciousness; it isn't meant for the masses.

Note that elite or specialist media have been talking about the opioid crisis for years, and yet the topic has never made it out to the public consciousness or public discourse at large, nor has it had any reception in the political sphere beyond mere platitudes, which anyone who was not been paying attention to the topic would even understand.

Amusingly, though, if you do a Ctrl F on article you link to, the name "Sackler" nowhere appears.

The point is how the elites control the public discourse, by keeping certain topics obscure to the public at large, while the elites and their hired professionals and Mandarins talk amongst themselves; a discourse not meant for the larger public.

But anyway, no one ever said that no one at all in the mass media was talking about the opioid crisis; this is just your implied strawman.

The topic was Google; you are simply using a diversion, i.e., moving the goalposts to the media at large.

[Dec 01, 2018] In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in Nevada

Dec 01, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

RobGehrke -> MonaHol , 30 Aug 2012 06:12

"What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific example of a story he broke after doing that?"

Our Men in Iran?

"We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada," a former senior American intelligence official told me. ... In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in Nevada

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html

His conversations with Lieutenant Calley are apparently what allowed him to break the My Lai massacre story as well, even though members of the military had already spoken out about it, and there had been already been charges brought. It just revealed the story to the general public, which prompted a fuller investigation and courts martial. I'm sure there are others.

So, obviously Hersh's "cozying up" (surely not the right term for it, though) is in the interests of raising public awareness of nefarious deeds, and is not scared of painting these organizations in a bad light, whereas Mazzetti's goal here seems to be to maintain his privileged access by providing favors - totally different motivations. It's rather easy to contrast the two, which "smartypants54" has even stated here.

Whatever the case, it's true that elements of the NYT have been mouthpieces more or less for government and corporate power for a long time. While I agree with Glenn about the faux cynicism perpetuating this kind of activity - "don't be naive, this is done all the time" - I can understand that it exists.

Such cynicism on the part of the public, rather than being an acknowledgment of acceptance and approval of such practices, can also be seen as part of a more radical critique of the corporate media in general, and the NYT particularly, in that such organizations - not that I totally agree with this - , by their very nature, can't be reformed and can never be totally effective checks on power because of the way they're structured, and who they answer to.

That's definitely not a reason to stop pointing it out, though.

[Dec 01, 2018] Google is micro-gaslighting again by Steve Sailer

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:55 am GMT

[reposted from previous thread]

I changed my default search engine to DuckDuckGo years ago.

Commenters occasionally say here at TUR that Google is somehow superior, but even if that's so (which I doubt), isn't the corruption plenty of reason to boycott? Guess not, in light of news the other day that Amazon continues to expand.

Most people, even here in Exceptionalia, are lazy and dull. In a better society, the Establishment would be better reined in.

B.B. , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Robert Epstein is doing research on how big tech companies can manipulate their services towards political ends.
Roger , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 9:20 am GMT
Somehow Google has convinced everyone that their search is not biased because it uses a trade secret algorithm. Eventually the public will figure out that the argument does not even make any sense. The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers, and of course it is biased.
anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT
Semi-OT: NYT has something about Facebook hiring an oppo research firm to look into George Soros. Apparently he trashed Facebook at Davos and Sheryl Sandberg thinks he might be shorting their stock.

Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.

Anonym , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:25 am GMT
This is why I use bing. An unexpected bonus is that the image search yields random porn for the lulz.
Buzz Mohawk , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
This makes me proud that I use Bing. It has a nice picture each day as its backdrop. Here is yesterday's, a particularly beautiful one of the Frankfurt Christmas Market, which proves Bing is Christmas-friendly -- and even German-friendly, Heaven forbid:
Anonymous [270] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
I've been using https://www.startpage.com/ as my main search engine for four years now. It serves my purposes >95% of the time. I only resort to Google no more than once every couple weeks. Startpage also allows you to visit sites anonymously and never ever tracks anything. Also no Gmail or Google Docs. Also run Ghostery to block Google Analytics on all sites (that, by the way, includes Unz.com).
dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
Since I am not interested in luvvies, Hollywood, and all that, I hardly ever comment on them. Kevin Spaceyga, however, is worth a remark. Because I was a great fan of the British original I thought I'd watch a couple of episodes of the American "House of Cards". It was noticeable that of the whole cast he was the only one who could act.
Sbrin , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
With the exception of Google Maps, which is the only decent mapping software out there, I have not used a Google product in over a decade.

If anyone can recommend a decent alternative for mapping I'm all in to ditch Google Maps.

Chriscom , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
"But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting."

Oh sweet summer child.

I think it was Steve who recommended this, but do an image search on Google for American Scientists and let us know if you think that's an accurate representation. Try the same with the phrase White Couples.

These days you get similar returns on Bing btw.

Yes I know these are not auto-suggestions, but fruit of the same tree.

The Creepy Line, add it to your watch lists. Amazon Prime I think.

anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I'm not taking a side in your spat, I just want to point out that it'd be foolish in the extreme to take Vox at its word there. All Vox does is tell people what they want to hear, and from that you can infer what kind of reader they're after, and it ain't Regular Joe.

'Cos what the "policy elite" really want is the news patronisingly explained to them

I think it would be more precise to describe Vox as being aimed at the social class from which the policy elite is drawn, rather than at the policy elite itself. Even so, I'd be shocked if most of the policy elite weren't regular readers. I doubt even 1% of them find it patronising. Remember: these people are 27-yr olds who literally know nothing.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT
@Roger More times than I can count, I have engaged on this topic with people who smugly declare that "Google searches are controlled by an algorithm" and hence cannot possibly be biased. After all, it's a big computer not a person!

And they appear to believe that this explanation is completely dispositive.

You are considerably more optimistic than I am about the general intelligence and critical faculties of the American public.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
@TelfoedJohn

The Sackler family are known to spread their ill-gotten wealth around in the arts world in order to buy respectability.

And the Saatchi family, and the Lauders, Lehmans, Kravises, Schwarzmans, Taubmans, Rothschilsb and so on and so on.

It's what they do.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Trevor H. Incidentally, anyone keen on researching the wealthy and powerful members of the Tribe is well advised to use "philanthropy" as a primary keyword. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson is considered a philanthropist by Google. Wikipedia is not far behind.

Bernie Madoff? Oh, he was just a misunderstood philanthropist.

Mike Zwick , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
Because of this article, I bookmarked Duck Duck Go and will use it instead of Google from now on. BTW, did you ever Google "Google autocomplete policy?"
Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT
@propagandist hacker Me too.

They have this excellent piece on their blog

https://spreadprivacy.com/how-to-remove-google/

Go thou, and do likewise.

Svigor , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
@snorlax Or it's a digital form of opioids. "Go to sleep white folks, nothing to see here."

It's how (((Big Media's))) been handling America's demographic change for decades.

peterike , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

I actually suspect that the "deaths from opioids" result is phased out as part of some algorithm to stop racist predictions, in this case, against white people

No. If you spend time around leftist websites, you will find lots and lots of Leftists don't see the opioid crisis as bad at all, because it mostly kills the wrong kind of white people (at least that's the perception, I don't know the numbers). Some openly cheer it and mock the "dumb hillbillies" that are dying by the thousands.

Google doesn't want to let you know about it because they're happy it's happening.

Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@B.B. Mrs Clinton, back in 1998 rued the Internet's lack of "gatekeepers"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1491134/posts

Interesting little beignet:

" So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to "

Mr. Anon , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@anon

Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.

Medieval nobles fought each other, often bitterly, often to the death. But they usually suspended their quarrels whenever the peasants got uppity. They could all agree to repress the commoners. Just because the elites aren't a monolithic block in everything, doesn't mean they don't conspire against all the rest of us.

alaska3636 , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they are looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to the question that they are going to ask the internet? It is occasionally amusing when I see suggested searches go off in a wildly different direction than I had intended, but I rarely follow the suggestions to their conclusion. I am sure Google has statistics that support their "micro-gaslighting"; however, marketing to the masses always feels counter-intuitive to my brain. Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough people to justify the ad-spend.
Spud Boy , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:34 pm GMT
Two comments:

1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

2. If the auto-complete is incorrect, I just keep typing. It doesn't make me change my intended search.

Philip Owen , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
Yandex.

What is gaslighting anyway? The meaning seems to vary. Listing facts and data seems to be gaslighting.

Philip Owen , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
Google's image recognition has been gutted. In 2014 it would recognize a face and find photos of that person across the internet. A right click would find the original of the fakes used by Russian trolls to suggest non existent attacks on civilians by the Ukrainian army. Now it can't even match the same image.
snorlax , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Looks like it's drugs in this case.

deaths from her ➔ deaths from herbalife/herpes/hernia surgery/herbal supplements
deaths from mor ➔ (nothing)
deaths from ox ➔ (nothing)
deaths from perc ➔ deaths percy jackson
deaths from cod ➔ (nothing)
deaths from vic ➔ death from victoza/vick's vaporub
deaths from hydro ➔ deaths from hydropower/hydroxycut/hydrogen sulfide/hydrofluoric acid/hydroxyzine/hydrogen cyanide/hydrochloric acid
deaths from coc ➔ deaths from coconuts
deaths from metha ➔ deaths from methadone (lol)/methanol poisoning/methane
deaths from cry ➔ deaths from cyrotherapy/cryptococcosis
deaths from amp ➔ deaths from amputation
deaths from ec ➔ deaths from ectopic pregnancy/e coli/e cigs/eclampsia/eczema/ect
deaths from md ➔ (nothing)
deaths from mari ➔ deaths from maria/marinol
deaths from ls ➔ (nothing)
deaths from lyse ➔ deaths from lysenkoism

Steve in Greensboro , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@meh Vox is for the policy elite, eh?

I doubt it, but having read some of their stuff, no one would ever say it is for the cognitive elite.

But the the Venn diagram between the cognitive elite and the policy elite would show very little overlap.

Alfa158 , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:58 pm GMT
@Buzz Mohawk I find that Bing is more objective and I also like the daily photo, so I switched to them as my browser home page a couple of years ago.

I have to say one of the things I like about Steve Sailer is his charming, old school White Guy naïveté:
"the news media doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about reporting on what goes on inside Google, perhaps out of fear of what Google could do to them."
Actually Steve, it's because the news media think Google is doing a wonderful thing and wish they would do it harder and faster.

Jack Highlands , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
Our problem is Google has Plausible Irrelevance: it's obvious they're manipulating auto-completes in directions they favor, and since Google is vast and powerful that seems highly relevant to us dissidents. But it's easy for Google to hide behind 'if searchers get all the way to "Kevin Spacey g", let them hunt and peck for a and y – what's the big deal?'
the , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
Here's a pretty slick case: for a while a search for the terms "Brian Littlefair" returned as the top hit:

UFOs: Proven 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' | Dissident Voice
dissidentvoice.org/2018/08/ufos-proven-beyond
Brian Littlefair / 08/23/2018

And the offending author becomes internet-famous as a flying saucer nut.

Brian Littlefair didn't write that. The search term "Brian Littlefair" does not appear on that UFO web page at all. What did appear there, for a while, in the Latest Article column, was 'The First Thing We Do,'

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/08/the-first-thing-we-do/

That was presumably the offending article. Its content might be triggering to hasbara bots or JTRIG-type keyboard commandos or both. The trick of suppression could be effected by a bit of incremental traffic while both articles appeared on the same page.

This was most pronounced on (Yahoo(oath)(Verizon)). It didn't replicate exactly but the same general hits permuted. DuckDuckGo returned a hit on the UFO article too. By contrast Metager.de, searx.me, and yandex.ru gave you what you would expect.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
@anonymous Same here on the duckduckgo, Mr #340, but I'll use google when I get to an impasse and really want to try hard to get some information.

DuckDuckgo search escalates to Bing (MUCH BETTER on 2 things: images and finding addresses/phone numbers for local businesses), then, if need be, Google.

BTW, I , uhhh, well, this friend of mine, yeah, sometimes types my blog name into Google to help it stay high in the rankings. Doing this on google, though I detest them, is akin to something everyone in the stock market does. With 90%, or what-have-you, of the searches, I crap, my friend wants to work within the system, so to speak. That's just like buying shares of some company because you know that others will buy on some news coming (the news alone may not actually be a good business reason to buy, but it's the psychology of the masses).

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Roger

The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers,

No, those people are absolutely NOT engineers, no matter WTF Sergey Brin calls them. There may be a few dozen engineers working for that place, but they'd be the guys calculating heat transfer loads off of the servers, or designing electrical power systems.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Alfa158 AGREED! However, Steve's probably got your point in mind too. If there is a proto-Tucker Carlson in a media operation, then he may fear the loss of business and de-linking by Google, though he does know Google is not doing wonderful things.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Redneck farmer With good reason. Life expectancy in the US is now falling, largely as a result of them (and suicide), despite the fact that we spend more on health care than anyone. We are prolonging the lives of the non-productive elderly at tremendous cost but killing healthy young people in what should be their prime productive years. You usually only see falling life expectancy in countries with serious decline, such as Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But, yes, it's not exactly a secret, which makes it even more puzzling that Google is manipulating its results in this way. I don't think it is just some by-product of the strange counter-intuitive workings of AI but is probably the result of human intervention, although I don't know for what reason. PC thinking is even more counter-intuitive than that of AI bots. I'm still trying to figure out why "colored people" is bad but "people of color" is good.

Ursala , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
I love iSteve. Top unorthodox reporting found here.
Intelligent Dasein , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT
Here's a few things I've noticed about Google's auto-complete from my own anecdotal experience.

1. It relies heavily not only on your search history but also on your search "currency," i.e. it will preferentially auto-fill a word or phrase if that same word or phrase appears on another tab you have open on your computer at the time, even if you've never typed that word or phrase into the search box before.

2. It is massively tied into television viewing patterns. Google knows what is on television, when and where. If you do a search about an item that was just featured in a commercial during an NFL game, you may get an auto-fill "hit" even before you've typed in anything you might think would be a relevant term.

Google is not in business to do social engineering, it's in business to make money. My impression is that Google's auto-fill suggestions are the result of a bunch of nerds trying desperately to monetize search and bumping up against the hard, cold reality that it can't really be done to any great extent, that the diminishing returns come sharp and quick, and that AI is nothing like it's cracked up to be. To that end they will mine every scrap of available data they can get their hands on and apply their algorithms to it, but the end product is mostly cheesy and useless, like Facebook showing you ads for products you just bought (and consequently don't need to buy again).

Since this is the best that the brightest programmers with the most powerful computers can do, it tells you that the whole concept is flawed. Advertising doesn't really work. AI doesn't really work. But the world today shuts its eyes to these facts in order to keep alive its inward vision of a prosperous, progressing global marketplace. If the facts were fully accepted, the value of companies like Google would sink to niche levels and the internet for the masses would basically shut down. This will happen one day, but in the meantime they will blow that bubble up with as much hype as possible in order to justify their own existence.

res , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I did the same comparison before I even started reading the comments. ; )

Here it is for anyone who wants to save some time. Notice the spike this week. iSteve influence?

This one is REALLY blatant given that "deaths from open heart surgery" returns: "Hmm, your search doesn't have enough data to show here." (sometimes a flatline just means one search happens much more than another, but still has data)

Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm tweaking?
Do they just remove results or actively provide innocuous replacements? Typing "deaths from ope" in Bing gives the Google response as the third option so seems inconclusive.
How do they get complete coverage? Is it some kind of regular expression like "deaths from op*", a similarity match to phrases, or ?

Another interesting data point is that typing "deaths from opi" gives zero autocompletions. Surely if they were doing explicit replacements they could add something like "deaths from opinion surveys."

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Anon I don't have the knowledge you seem to have about it, Mr. #190, though it sounds like you were in this around the time of Lycos and Alta Vista, etc. Lots has happened since then. I want to ask you if you think my first thought (upon reading Mr. Sailer's post) has any merit. That is, do you think some of the searches, say the Buchanan one*, were the result of bots made to beat all hell out of the search engine on one very particular topic to make auto-complete, and more importantly, IMO, the top results appear as one wants?

I could see some guy trying to make his name or business appear on top, maybe even Mr. Haney (haha, if he's still alive) on the "Bu"-for "Buchanan" thing, but who would want to make the "open-heart surgery.." appear first, a team of computer savvy cardiologist?! It would also require lots of different manipulations besides just the one displayed by Steve. Of course, that's what computers are damn good at.

I tend to agree with Mr. Sailer's opinion on this, but for me, all this discussion (if some good geeks come on here) is a good thing, as I'd like to learn more about SEO for my own benefit.

information retrieval engineers

See, now that's not engineering. These people don't work out problems using the math and empirical data that describe the laws of nature. I don't want to have to keep doing this, dammit.

.

* and I did read you back then, Steve, as I remember this well. I cannot believe that was 8 damn years ago. Time is figuratively flying!

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous Arguably (and I'm not saying this is right) because whites are the hardest hit group, which contradicts the narrative of "white privilege". An old joke headline (and I've seen actual examples of this many times in our MSM after natural disasters, wars, etc.) is " World Ends – Minorities and Women Hit Hardest".

This is the lens thru which the Left views everything, so something that shows that in fact working class whites, especially men, are the ones who are in the most trouble in our society (but get the least help from our government and institutions) is not something that the Left is eager to highlight. This might force them to reconsider whether they have put their thumb on the scale too heavily in favor of other groups. It also undermines their nonsensical claim that they are only "helping" minorities and immigrants, which is a purely good thing, when in fact they are manipulating a zero sum game, so for every bit of "help" that they render, there is an equal amount of "harm" put on someone else's head.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@res

Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm tweaking?

I think the answer is no. Sometimes you can gain little glimpses from patents, but as a whole Google algorithms are a heavily guarded trade secret for many reasons. First of all because they don't want to give search engine competitors (not that they have many left) an advantage – their search algorithm was their secret sauce in the 1st place. 2nd because people who are trying to game the search system for various nefarious economic and political reasons would LOVE to know how the algorithm works because then they could manipulate it – better for it to be a black box. And lastly because they don't want you to tour the sausage factory and see how much "hand tuning" is going on (I suspect a lot, because bots are very "racist" when left to their own devices) and how much of that hand tuning is based on SJW considerations and the financial and petty personal interests of the Google execs. This would open them up to all kinds of 2nd guessing and criticism. So from their POV they are much better off keeping it all a complete mystery and telling you that it's all "science" that you wouldn't understand anyway.

Anonymous [527] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
@anon Or it's a paid piece to make it look like they aren't in cahoots. I don't really trust any of the players to give me the truth.
Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck Meanwhile, back in the real world

"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it.
And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities."
Joseph Sobran, April 1997

KunioKun , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:15 pm GMT
Here is a great article on how evil the Sackler family is. Getting doctors to chuck their public trust and credibility into the toilet to shill for Purdue Pharma was pioneered by these people for Valium.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin

JLK , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

I don't really get why Google does this kind of thing. One reason they do this is because they can and almost nobody ever criticizes them for it.

In the opioid case, it would be a reasonable presumption that Google is being paid to skew the results.

Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:30 pm GMT

It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.

Steve admits he's nobody!

Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Spud Boy

1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

Isn't there an umbrella search engine that will put your terms into all the other major ones?

Bookfinder.com does this for book searches. It gives you Amazon, B&N, etc., for new, and American Book Exchange and others for used.

Dogpile is still around. Does that do the job?

tambit , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
Big tech will typically try to obfuscate the issue by saying "it's the algorithm" or "it's complicated." It's not.

The easiest, least cumbersome way to regulate the major search engines is make them provide an audit log of all filtering rules or hard overrides in their search results. Limit this to for profit services that have above a certain threshold in daily users or market share, so it does not hurt innovation in startups. The vast majority of changes would be understandable or inconsequential. But it gives both parties of government direct insight, particularly around local elections, where meddling would be impossible to detect.

Further out, you can make them report any substantial bias they are introducing into the training data and give a basic explanation. In the same way lenders have to explain their lending models, search engines should have to explain how they are tweaking theirs. As search increasingly shifts to mobile, personalized, and voice-based, this becomes important as the only search result that matters is the first one that is returned.

In a world where national elections are coming down to a few hundred thousand votes, it blows my mind Republicans have not been pushing for this.

jim jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein And robots are crap:
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT
@Mr. Anon Haha good analogy, Mr. Anon. Zerohedge had a story on this little spat. However, these are no medieval nobles, but more like candidates for AntiChrist . It'll be entertaining, I suppose, like Christopher Walken is as the angel Gabrial in Prophecy , but I'm stayin' outta' this one.
Corvinus , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:45 pm GMT
"It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this."

You mean it would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask Google, DuckDuckGo AND Bing publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.

Probably because it is Coalition of the Fringe Group Cringeworthy.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@alaska3636 Yes, I'd rather not even look at the auto-complete, or do it on a bogged-down computer like mine in which it can't catch up with me! The exception is when I want to look up a word spelling. I just let auto-complete do it for me.

On your 2nd point:

Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough people to justify the ad-spend.

Not necessarily, Alaska. Who really knows if the ads do a damn thing? Google or whoever might honestly give you numbers as to click-throughs, but loads of them, at least for me, are mistakes and times that the little X for close is SO DAMN SMALL that I can't be sure to close rather than click the ad. (That's especially bad on a touch screen.)

Then, the only way to know if your ad really was read at all, is if it leads to a sale or request of some sort being sent in. Google may tell you how many people are reading what you've got out there, but that's just more lies.

Almost Missouri , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:08 pm GMT
@Anon Do you think Google's burying of Pat Buchanan's name was a random quirk?

How about the sudden end to "gay" auto-completes?

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein Very good comment, I.D., especially the last paragraph re: advertising. Your first part reminded me of something that is fairly-well related, so I'll write it here.

Have you all noticed something with youtube, owned by Google? It now uses the IP number (or something else at the modem or router) to keep track of videos that you've been watching or searching for, rather than just cookies, or some other method based on just THE ONE DEVICE.

Here's the observation – My wife likes to watch a number of the same kinds of silly soap-opera-like and reality-show videos on her computer or phone when she is bored. Yes, I know she is no dummy, but it's whom they are. Anyway, it used to be I'd see music and political video suggestions based on what I've viewed and (I believe) what videos have been embedded in web pages (such as unz) that I've viewed.

All of a sudden, about 3 months back, I started seeing all these suggestions on youtube on my computer for the dumb-ass soap-opera/reality-show videos that my wife watches. The suggestions area was filled with her crap. That happened like the flip of a switch. That's probably literally the case (OK, a software setting), but also likely one of the "action items" decided on at a meeting by some Google Anything-But-Engineers just before that day. It's pretty annoying – I don't need the suggestions anyway, but now I can see what these people are up to.

Just a word to the wise: If you watch something, cough, porn, cough cough, that you may not quite want others in the household to know about, you'd better go to Starbucks. The bathroom code is 1-1-1-1. Glad to be of help.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:28 pm GMT
@Anon We know that AI is "racist" and that Google is working hard to find a way to make it not racist (and yet still produce meaningful results), which is probably impossible. We also know that Google has plenty of human resources (although not an infinite #) to throw at such problems until an automated fix is found, just as Facebook now has thousands of people searching manually for Rooshian election interference in order to keep the dogs of Washington at bay. We can also guess that they are not eager to publicize to what extent they are tweaking or hand tuning algorithms or results – they would much rather you think that it is all done by "science". Putting this together, it's my guess that they are doing a fair amount of hand tuning, which is some spotty and uneven combination of combatting SEOs, de-racisting their AI bots, the leftist predilections of Google employees, the commands from on high of Google management, etc.
tambit , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:04 pm GMT
@tambit Final observations about Silicon Valley big tech. People need to appreciate a few things:

– Think of the short tenures that employees have at big tech companies. A conservative at Google or Facebook will only be there for two or three years. So they wonder, "Why rock the boat? In two years, I will be at Netflix or Amazon, or joining a startup, anyway." The transitory nature of it makes employees who break from the orthodoxy stay silent, especially after Damore.

– As with any company, everything is tacitly approved from the CEO and senior leadership. It's unlikely they have their hands in augmenting search results directly. On the other hand, they know the biases of their employees, and look the other way. For example, a CEO may talk about how getting SF contractors to vet news articles means there is unintentional liberal bias. But what prevents them from having some of the contractors in say, Kansas or Ohio, for a more balanced sample? Because the CEO condones the bias.

– If people are waiting for a smoking gun from Google, you will be out of luck. Because of their reach, they can quietly nudge people in a certain direction through repeated exposure. You may see an isolated incident and think "that's weird." But you're not seeing the few thousand other ways they are doing it concurrently. More so, as things continue to shift to mobile and native apps, there will be no meaningful way to measure this. For example, voice search could be construed so it "misunderstands" some phrases with slightly higher probability. This prompts users to type it in manually, which many will not do. Good luck catching that.

Lars Porsena , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Reg Cæsar Typing !bing, !google, !youtube, !amazon, !wikipedia and some others into duckduckgo before the search phrase, will redirect you to a search result from those sites, rather than duckduckgo results.
utu , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
@KunioKun I have an impression that in media coverage of the opioid crisis the role of heroine, its price and where does it come from is underplayed. Any connection to Afghanistan?
Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Sbrin Give Bing Maps a try. IMO it has a more straightforward interface if you are on a PC.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT
@utu Most "heroin" nowadays is fentanyl or some other synthetic opiate and it comes from labs in China or from US prescription sources. I