May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism
and Alliance of Transnational Elites
Neoliberalism is inseparable from imperialism and globalization
All U.S. schoolchildren should be taught, as part of their basic civics education,
by conscientious elementary, middle school and high school teachers, that they live in animperialistcountry. The term itself ought to be popularized. This
is what politicians like Obama actually refer to, elliptically, when they call the U.S. “exceptional.
The idea financial imperialism is simple. Instead of old-fashion military occupation of the country,
take over the countries in crisis, if necessary remove their democratically elected governments from
power by claiming that election are falsified and/or official are corrupted, and/or the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets
they want to install). They use the installed puppets to mandate austerity, burden the country with debt and facilitate
condition under which most
of which will be stolen and repatriated to the West.
Incite greed of the people or promise substantial increase in living standard (the claims does not need to be realistic;
when the people realize that they were deceived it's too late). Incite via controlled MSM resentment the current government
(which, of course, if far from perfect), use false flag operation to de-legitimize the government (using
Sharp textbook) and via a color revolution, or armed
insurrection, or coup d'état install neoliberal government of completely subservient to West
stooges.
Allow this government to steal as much as they can and create a fifth column of compradors and
oligarchs who are connected to the West. They will keep money they stole in Western banks making them fully
controllable puppets and are afraid of their own people; conceal the negative economic results of such "bandit privatization" of
state assets with loans to cover the
economic rape of the country for a while.
When crisis hit and it is impossible to cover tracks anymore bail the country out which means
just converting limited duration loans into evergreen loans that never will be repaid, but when load
expire you have huge instrument into pressuring the country to do what you want.
Another permanent debt-slave is now born.
After installation of a puppet government, it is relatively easy to use
Fifth column based government to protect foreign financial
interests. Now you can recoup the costs and enjoy the profits. Much cheaper and more humane then bombing the country and killing a
couple of hundred thousand people to achieve the same goals (Iraq variant) or by arming and training jihadists (using Saudi
and Gulf monarchies money) and tribal elements to depose the government (Libya and Syria variants) who kill as much, if nor more.
A classic recent examples were Yeltsin's government in Russia, Yushchenko regime in Ukraine,
Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk duo in Ukraine and sequence of neoliberal governments in Greece.
In the conventional (or mainstream) discourse, imperialism is either absent or, more recently,
proudly presented as the ‘AmericanBurden': to civilize the world and bring to all the benediction
of the Holy Trinity, the green-faced Lord Dollar and its deputies and occasional rivals. Holy
Euro and Saint Yen. New converts win a refurbished international airport, one brand-new branch of
McDonald’s, two luxury hotels, 3,000 NGOs and one US military base.
This offer cannot be refused - or else.2 In turn, globalisation is generally presented as an
inescapable, inexorable and benevolent process leading to greater competition, welfare
improvements and the spread of democracy around the world. In reality, however, the so-called
process of globalisation - to the extent that it actually exists (see Saad-Rlho 2003) - is merely
the international face of neoliberalism: a world-wide strategy of accumulation and social
discipline that doubles up as tin imperialist project, spearheaded by the alliance between the
US ruling class and locally dominant capitalist coalitions.
This ambitious power project centered
on neoliberalism at home and imperial globalism abroad is implemented by diverse social and
economic political alliances in each country, but the interests of local finance and the US
ruling class, itself dominated by finance, are normally hegemonic.
...the United States, the United Kingdom and east and south-east Asia respectively,
neoliberalism is a particular organisation of capitalism, which has evolved to protect
capital(ism) and to reduce the power of labour. This is achieved by means of social, economic and
political transformations imposed by internal forces as well as external pressure. The internal
forces include the coalition between financial interests, leading industrialists, traders and
exporters, media barons, big landowners, local political chieftains, the
top echelons of the civil service and the military, and their intellectual and political proxies.
These groups are closely connected with ‘global’ ideologies emanating from the centre, and they
tend to adapt swiftly to the demands beamed from the metropolis. Their efforts have led to a
significant worldwide shift in powerrelations away from the majority. Corporate power has
increased, while finance hits acquired unrivalled influence, and the political spectrum has
shifted towards the right. Left parties and mass organisations have imploded, while trade unions
have been muzzled or disabled by unemployment. Forms of external pressure have included the
diffusion of Western culture and ideology, foreign support for state and civil society
institutions peddling neolibcral values, the shameless use of foreign aid, debt relief and
balance of payments support to promote the neoliberal programme, and diplomatic pressure,
political unrest and military intervention when necessary.
...the ruling economic and political forces in the European Union have instrumentalised the
process of integration to ensure the hegemony of neoliberalism. This account is complemented by
the segmentation of Eastern Europe into countries that are being drawn into a Western
European-style neoliberalism and others that are following Russia’s business oligarchy model.
In
sum, neoliberalism is everywhere both the outcome and the arena of social conflicts. It sets the
political and economic agenda, limits the possible outcomes, biases expectations, and imposes
urgent tasks on those challenging its assumptions, methods and consequences.
In the meantime, neoliberal theory has not remained static. In order to deal with the most
powerful criticisms leveled against neoliberalism, that it has increased poverty and social
dislocation around the world, neoliberal theory has attempted to present the ogre in a more
favorable light. In spite of the substantial resources invested in this ideologically inspired
make-over, these amendments have remained unconvincing, not least because the heart of the
neoliberal project has remained unchanged. This is discussed in Chapter 15 for poverty and
distribution, while Chapter 21 unpicks the agenda of the ‘Third Way', viewed by many as
‘neoliberalism with a human face’.
Neoliberalism offered a finance-friendly solution to the problems of capital accumulation at
the end of a relatively long cycle of prosperity. Chapters 1. 22 and 30 show that neoliberalism
imposed discipline upon a restless working class through contractionary fiscal and monetary
policies and wide-ranging initiatives to curtail social rights, under the guise of anti-inflation
and productivity-enhancing measures. Neoliberalism also rationalised the transfer of state
capacity to allocate resources inter-temporally (the balance between investment and consumption)
and inter-sectorally (the distribution of investment, employment and output) towards an
increasingly internationally integrated (and US-led) financial sector. In doing so, neoliberalism
facilitated a gigantic transfer of resources to the local rich and the United States, as is shown
by Chapters 11 and 15.
The “elephant in the room” is peak oil (plato oil
to be more correct) and the plato of food production. Without "cheap oil" extraction
growing, it is
more difficult to sustain both population growth and rising standard of living simultaneously.
It became the situation of iether/or.
So the future it does not look pretty. As soon as "cheap oil" escape the current plato, Western financial system gets into trouble: private banks based fractional
reserve banking requires economy expansion for survival. Essentially they add positive
feedback loop to the economy, greatly increasing the instability. That connection was discovered by Hyman Minsky. Minsky
explored a form of
instability that is embedded in neoliberal/financialized economies resulting from the use of fiat currency and fractional
reserve banking. he argued that such an economy automatically generates bubbles, bursting of which result in periodic deep economic
crisis. Which are not an exception, but a feature of neoliberal capitalism (aka "supercapitalism", or "casino capitalism).
When Minsky crisis hits some, less important, banks will
implode and strategically important need to be saved by government at a great expense for taxpayers.
The western elite is well aware of this possibility and will steal, loot and pillage as fast as they
can to prolong the agony... Neoliberal expansion and conversion of other countries into debt slaves
thus serves as a substitute for economic growth.
What actually is devalued in austerity programs imposed on indebted nations via currency depreciation
is the price of local labor (along with standard of living of the most population). So austerity programs
caused a huge drop in the standard of living of population. For example after EuroMaydan color revolution the standard of living in Ukraine
dropped to
the level of the most poor countries of Africa (less then $2 a day for the majority of
population).
This is a pretty instructive example. It qlso cur domestic consumption of fuels and minerals, consumer goods, and food. As wages are sticky and it is
difficult
to reduced them directly (via high unemployment, leading to falling wages). But the currency depreciation can
do the same trick even more effectively. For example since February 22 coup d'état, grivna, the Ukrainian currency depreciated from
8 to 28 grivna to dollar, or approximately 350%.
This is how war of creditors against debtor countries turns into a class war. But to impose such
neoliberal reforms, foreign pressure is necessary to bypass domestic, democratically elected Parliaments.
Not every country’s voters can be expected to be as passive in acting against their own interests as
those of Latvia and Ireland. The financial capital objective is to bypass parliament by demanding a
“consensus” (facilitated by a huge foreign debt) to put foreign creditors first, above the national economy. This is the essence of
the status of debt slave country. Civil war it a perfect tool to accelerate this process.
Buying natural monopolies in transportation, communications, and the land from the public domain
for pennies on the dollar now can be called "rescue package", not the road to debt peonage and a financial neo-feudalism
that is a grim reality of "debt slave" countries, where populations are indentured laborersof international capital. Let me state it
very simply : "the borrower [debtor] is SERVANT to the lender" (
Wikipedia ):
An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of
unfree labor who is
bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture)
to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract often lets the employer sell the labor of an
indenturee to a third party. Indenturees usually enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other benefit, or
to meet a legal obligation, such as debt
bondage.
At the same time then comes to bailing out bankers who overplayed with derivatives, all rules are ignored
– in order to serve the “higher justice” of saving banks and their high-finance counterparties from
taking a loss. This is quite a contrast compared to IMF policy toward labor and “taxpayers.” The class
war is back in business – with a vengeance, and bankers are the winners this time around.
Robert B Reich, former US Secretary of Labor and resident neo-liberal in the Clinton administration
from 1993 to 1997, wrote in the September 14, 2007 edition of The Wall Street Journal an opinion piece,
"CEOs Deserve Their Pay", as part of an orchestrated campaign to promote his new book: Supercapitalism:
The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Afred A Knopf).
Reich is a former Harvard professor and the former Maurice B Hexter Professor of Social and Economic
Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. He is currently
a professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California (Berkley) and a regular
liberal gadfly in the unabashed supply-side Larry Kudlow TV show that celebrates the merits of capitalism.
Reich's Supercapitalism brings to mind Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism: The Economic
Strategy of American Empire (1972-2003). While Reich, a liberal turned neo-liberal, sees "supercapitalism"
as the natural evolution of insatiable shareholder appetite for gain, a
polite euphemism for greed, that cannot or should not be reined in by regulation, Hudson,
a Marxist heterodox economist, sees "super imperialism" as the structural outcome of post-World War
II superpower geopolitics, with state interests overwhelming free market
forces, making regulation irrelevant. While Hudson is critical of "super imperialism"
and thinks that it should be resisted by the weaker trading partners of the US, Reich gives the impression
of being ambivalent about the inevitability, if not the benignity, of "supercapitalism".
The structural link between capitalism and imperialism was first observed by John Atkinson Hobson
(1858-1940), an English economist, who wrote in 1902 an insightful analysis of the economic basis of
imperialism. Hobson provided a humanist critique of neoclassical economics, rejecting exclusively materialistic
definitions of value. With Albert Frederick Mummery (1855-1895), the great British mountaineer who was
killed in 1895 by an avalanche while reconnoitering Nanga Parbat, an 8,000-meter Himalayan peak, Hobson
wrote The Physiology of Industry (1889), which argued that an industrial economy requires government
intervention to maintain stability, and developed the theory of over-saving that was given a glowing
tribute by John Maynard Keynes three decades later.
The need for governmental intervention to stabilize an expanding national industrial economy was
the rationale for political imperialism. On the other side of the coin, protectionism was a governmental
counter-intervention on the part of weak trading partners for resisting imperialist expansion of the
dominant power. Historically, the processes of globalization have always been the result of active state
policy and action, as opposed to the mere passive surrender of state sovereignty to market forces. Market
forces cannot operate in a vacuum. They are governed by man-made rules. Globalized markets require the
acceptance by local authorities of established rules of the dominant economy. Currency monopoly of course is the most fundamental trade restraint by one single dominant government.
Adam Smith published Wealth of Nations in 1776, the year of US independence. By the time the
constitution was framed 11 years later, the US founding fathers were deeply influenced by Smith's ideas,
which constituted a reasoned abhorrence of trade monopoly and government policy in restricting trade.
What Smith abhorred most was a policy known as mercantilism, which was practiced by all the major powers
of the time. It is necessary to bear in mind that Smith's notion of the limitation of government action
was exclusively related to mercantilist issues of trade restraint. Smith never advocated government
tolerance of trade restraint, whether by big business monopolies or by other governments in the name
of open markets.
A central aim of mercantilism was to ensure that a nation's exports remained
higher in value than its imports, the surplus in that era being paid only in specie money
(gold-backed as opposed to fiat money). This trade surplus in gold permitted the surplus country, such
as England, to invest in more factories at home to manufacture more for export, thus bringing home more
gold. The importing regions, such as the American colonies, not only found the gold reserves backing
their currency depleted, causing free-fall devaluation (not unlike that faced today by many emerging-economy
currencies), but also wanting in surplus capital for building factories to produce for domestic consumption
and export. So despite plentiful iron ore in America, only pig iron was exported to England in return
for English finished iron goods. The situation was similar to today's oil producing countries where
despite plentiful crude oil, refined petrochemical products such as gasoline and heating oil have to
be imported.
In 1795, when the newly independent Americans began finally to wake up to their disadvantaged trade
relationship and began to raise European (mostly French and Dutch) capital to start a manufacturing
industry, England decreed the Iron Act, forbidding the manufacture of iron
goods in its American colonies, which caused great dissatisfaction among the prospering colonials.
Smith favored an opposite government policy toward promoting domestic economic production and free
foreign trade for the weaker traders, a policy that came to be known as "laissez faire" (because the
English, having nothing to do with such heretical ideas, refuse to give it an English name). Laissez
faire, notwithstanding its literal meaning of "leave alone", meant nothing of the sort. It meant an
activist government policy to counteract mercantilism. Neo-liberal free-market
economists are just bad historians, among their other defective characteristics, when they propagandize
"laissez faire" as no government interference in trade affairs.
Friedrich List, in his National System of Political Economy (1841), asserts that political
economy as espoused in England, far from being a valid science universally, was merely British national
opinion, suited only to English historical conditions. List's institutional school of economics asserts
that the doctrine of free trade was devised to keep England rich and powerful at the expense of its
trading partners and it must be fought with protective tariffs and other protective devices of economic
nationalism by the weaker countries.
Henry Clay's "American system" was a national system of political economy.
US neo-imperialism in the post WWII period disingenuously promotes neo-liberal free-trade against
governmental protectionism to keep the US rich and powerful at the expense of its trading partners.
Before the October Revolution of 1917, many national liberation movements in European
colonies and semi-colonies around the world were influenced by List's economic nationalism. The 1911
Nationalist Revolution in China, led by Sun Yat-sen, was heavily influenced by Lincoln's political ideas
- government of the people, by the people and for the people - and the economic nationalism of List,
until after the October Revolution when Sun realized that the Soviet model was the correct path to national
revival.
Hobson's magnum opus, Imperialism, (1902), argues that imperialistic
expansion is driven not by state hubris, known in US history as "manifest destiny", but by an innate
quest for new markets and investment opportunities overseas for excess capital formed by over-saving
at home for the benefit of the home state. Over-saving during the industrial age came
from Richardo's theory of the iron law of wages, according to which wages were kept perpetually at subsistence
levels as a result of uneven market power between capital and labor. Today, job outsourcing that returns
as low-price imports contributes to the iron law of wages in the US domestic economy. (See my article
Organization of Labor Exporting Countries [OLEC]).
Hobson's analysis of the phenology (study of life cycles) of capitalism was drawn upon by Lenin to
formulate a theory of imperialism as an advanced stage of capitalism:
"Imperialism is capitalism at
that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established;
in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world
among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among
the biggest capitalist powers has been completed." (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter 7).
Lenin was also influenced by Rosa Luxemberg, who three year earlier had written her major work, The
Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism (Die Akkumulation
des Kapitals: Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus), 1913). Luxemberg, together
with Karl Liebknecht a founding leader of the Spartacist League (Spartakusbund), a radical Marxist revolutionary
movement that later renamed itself the Communist Party of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands,
or KPD), was murdered on January 15, 1919 by members of the Freikorps, rightwing militarists who were
the forerunners of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) led by Ernst Rohm.
The congenital association between capitalism and imperialism requires practically all truly anti-imperialist
movements the world over to be also anti-capitalist. To this day, most nationalist capitalists in emerging
economies are unwitting neo-compradors for super imperialism. Neo-liberalism, in its attempts to break
down all national boundaries to facilitate global trade denominated in fiat dollars, is the ideology
of super imperialism.
Hudson, the American heterodox economist, historian of ancient economies and post-WW II international
balance-of-payments specialist, advanced in his 1972 book the notion of 20th century super imperialism.
Hudson updated Hobson's idea of 19th century imperialism of state industrial policy seeking new markets
to invest home-grown excess capital. To Hudson, super imperialism is a state
financial strategy to export debt denominated in the state's fiat currency as capital to the new financial
colonies to finance the global expansion of a superpower empire.
No necessity, or even
intention, was entertained by the superpower of ever having to pay off these paper debts after the US
dollar was taken off gold in 1971.
Super imperialism transformed into monetary imperialism after the 1973 Middle East oil crisis with
the creation of the petrodollar and two decades later emerged as dollar hegemony through financial globalization
after 1993. As described in my 2002 AToL article,
Dollar
hegemony has to go, a geopolitical phenomenon emerged after the 1973 oil crisis in which
the US dollar, a fiat currency since 1971, continues to serve as the primary reserve currency for
international trade because oil continues to be denominated in fiat dollars as a result of superpower
geopolitics, leading to dollar hegemony in 1993 with the globalization of deregulated financial markets.
Three causal developments allowed dollar hegemony to emerge over a span of two decades after 1973
and finally take hold in 1993. US fiscal deficits from overseas spending since the 1950s caused a massive
drain in US gold holdings, forcing the US in 1971 to abandon the 1945 Bretton Woods regime of fixed
exchange rate based on a gold-backed dollar. Under that international financial architecture, cross-border
flow of funds was not considered necessary or desirable for promoting international trade or domestic
development. The collapse of the 1945 Bretton Woods regime in 1971 was the initial development toward
dollar hegemony.
The second development was the denomination of oil in dollars after the 1973 Middle East oil crisis.
The emergence of petrodollars was the price the US, still only one of two contending superpowers in
1973, extracted from defenseless oil-producing nations for allowing them to nationalize the Western-owned
oil industry on their soil. As long as oil transactions are denominated in fiat dollars, the US essentially
controls all the oil in the world financially regardless of specific ownership, reducing all oil producing
nations to the status of commodity agents of dollar hegemony.
The third development was the global deregulation of financial markets after the Cold War, making
cross-border flow of funds routine, and a general relaxation of capital and foreign exchange control
by most governments involved in international trade. This neo-liberal trade regime brought into existence
a foreign exchange market in which free-floating exchange rates made computerized speculative attacks
on weak currencies a regular occurrence. These three developments permitted the emergence of dollar
hegemony after 1994 and helped the US win the Cold War with financial power derived from fiat money.
Dollar hegemony advanced super imperialism one stage further from the financial to the monetary front.
Industrial imperialism sought to achieve a trade surplus by exporting manufactured good to the colonies
for gold to fund investment for more productive plants at home. Super imperialism sought to extract
real wealth from the colonies by paying for it with fiat dollars to sustain a balance of payments out
of an imbalance in the exchange of commodities. Monetary imperialism under dollar hegemony exports debt
denominated in fiat dollars through a permissive trade deficit with the new colonies, only to re-import
the debt back to the US as capital account surplus to finance the US debt bubble.
The circular recycling of dollar-denominated debt was made operative by the dollar, a fiat currency
that only the US can print at will, continuing as the world's prime reserve currency for international
trade and finance, backed by US geopolitical superpower. Dollars are accepted universally because oil
is denominated in dollars and everyone needs oil and thus needs dollars to buy oil. Any nation that
seeks to denominate key commodities, such as oil, in currencies other than the dollar will soon find
itself invaded by the sole superpower. Thus the war on Iraq is not about oil, as former Federal Reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan suggested recently. It is about keeping oil denominated in dollars to protect
dollar hegemony. The difference is subtle but of essential importance.
Since 1993, central banks of all trading nations around the world, with the exception of the US Federal
Reserve, have been forced to hold more dollar reserves than they otherwise need to ward off the potential
of sudden speculative attacks on their currencies in unregulated global financial markets. Thus "dollar
hegemony" prevents the exporting nations, such as the Asian Tigers, from spending domestically the dollars
they earn from the US trade deficit and forces them to fund the US capital account surplus, shipping
real wealth to the US in exchange for the privilege of financing further growth of the US debt economy.
Not only do these exporting nations have to compete by keeping their domestic wages down and by prostituting
their environment, the dollars that they earn cannot be spent at home without causing a monetary crisis
in their own currencies because the dollars they earn have to be exchanged into local currencies before
they can be spent domestically, causing an excessive rise in their domestic money supply which in turn
causes domestic inflation-pushed bubbles. While the trade-surplus nations are forced to lend their export
earnings back to the US, these same nations are starved for capital, as global capital denominated in
dollars will only invest in their export sectors to earn more dollars. The domestic sector with local
currency earnings remains of little interest to global capital denominated in dollars. As a result,
domestic development stagnates for lack of capital.
Dollar hegemony permits the US to transform itself from a competitor
in world markets to earn hard money, to a fiat-money-making monopoly with fiat dollars that only it
can print at will. Every other trading nation has to exchange low-wage goods for dollars
that the US alone can print freely and that can be spent only in the dollar economy without monetary
penalty.
Japan is a classic victim of monetary imperialism. In 1990, as a result of Japanese export prowess,
the Industrial Bank of Japan was the largest bank in the world, with a market capitalization of $57
billion. The top nine of the 10 largest banks then were all Japanese, trailed by Canadian Alliance in
10th place. No US bank made the top-10 list. By 2001, the effects of dollar hegemony have pushed Citigroup
into first place with a market capitalization of $260 billion. Seven of the top 10 largest financial
institutions in the world in 2001 were US-based, with descending ranking in market capitalization: Citigroup
($260 billion), AIG ($209 billion), HSBC (British-$110 billion), Berkshire Hathaway ($100 billion),
Bank of America ($99 billion), Fanny Mae ($80 billion), Wells Fargo ($74 billion), JP Morgan Chase ($72
billion), RBS (British-$70 billion) and UBS (Swiss-$67 billion). No Japanese bank survived on the list.
China is a neoclassic case of dollar hegemony victimization even though its domestic financial markets
are still not open and the yuan is still not freely convertible. With over $1.4 trillion in foreign
exchange reserves earned at a previously lower fixed exchange rate of 8.2 to a dollar set in 1985, now
growing at the rate of $1 billion a day at a narrow-range floating exchange rate of around 7.5 since
July 2005, China cannot spend much of it dollar holdings on domestic development without domestic inflation
caused by excessive expansion of its yuan money supply. The Chinese economy is overheating because the
bulk of its surplus revenue is in dollars from exports that cannot be spent inside China without monetary
penalty. Chinese wages are too low to absorb sudden expansion of yuan money supply to develop the domestic
economy. And with over $1.4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, equal to its annual GDP, China cannot
even divest from the dollar without having the market effect of a falling dollar moving against its
remaining holdings.
The People's Bank of China announced on July 20, 2005 that effective immediately the yuan exchange
rate would go up by 2.1% to 8.11 yuan to the US dollar and that China would drop the dollar peg to its
currency. In its place, China would move to a "managed float" of the yuan, pegging the currency's exchange
value to an undisclosed basket of currencies linked to its global trade. In an effort to limit the amount
of volatility, China would not allow the currency to fluctuate by more than 0.3% in any one trading
day. Linking the yuan to a basket of currencies means China's currency is relatively free from market
forces acting on the dollar, shifting to market forces acting on a basket of currencies of China's key
trading partners. The basket is composed of the euro, yen and other Asian currencies as well as the
dollar. Though the precise composition of the basket was not disclosed, it can nevertheless be deduced
by China's trade volume with key trading partners and by mathematical calculation from the set-daily
exchange rate.
Thus China is trapped in a trade regime operating on an international monetary architecture in
which it must continue to export real wealth in the form of underpaid labor and polluted environment
in exchange for dollars that it must reinvest in the US. Ironically, the recent rise of anti-trade
sentiment in US domestic politics offers China a convenient, opportune escape from dollar hegemony to
reduce its dependence on export to concentrate on domestic development. Chinese domestic special interest
groups in the export sector would otherwise oppose any policy to slow the growth in export if not for
the rise of US protectionism which causes shot-term pain for China but long-term benefit in China's
need to restructure its economy toward domestic development. Further trade surplus denominated in dollar
is of no advantage to China.
Even as the domestic US economy declined after the onset of globalization in the early 1990s, US
dominance in global finance has continued to this day on account of dollar hegemony. It should not be
surprising that the nation that can print at will the world's reserve currency for international trade
should come up on top in deregulated global financial markets. The so-called
emerging markets around the world are the new colonies of monetary imperialism in a global neo-liberal
trading regime operating under dollar hegemony geopolitically dominated by the US as the world's sole
remaining superpower.
In Supercapitalism, Reich identifies corporate social responsibility as a diversion from economic
efficiency and an un-capitalistic illusion. Of course the late Milton Friedman had asserted that the
only social responsibility of corporations is to maximize profit, rather than to generate economic well-being
and balanced growth through fair profits. There is ample evidence to suggest that a single-minded quest
for maximizing global corporate profit can lead to domestic economic decline in even the world's sole
remaining superpower. The US public is encouraged to blame such decline on the misbehaving trading partners
of the US rather than US trade policy that permits US transnational corporation to exploit workers in
all trading nations, including those in the US. It is a policy that devalues work by over-rewarding
financial manipulation.
Yet to Reich, the US corporate income tax is regressive and inequitable and should be abolished so
that after-tax corporate profit can be even further enhanced. This pro-profit position is at odds with
even rising US Republican sentiment against transnational corporations and their global trade strategies.
Reich also thinks the concept of corporate criminal liability is based on an "anthropomorphic fallacy"
that ends up hurting innocent people. Reich sees as inevitable an evolutionary path towards an allegedly
perfect new world of a super-energetic capitalism responding to the dictate of all-powerful consumer
preference through market democracy.
Reich argues that corporations cannot be expected to be more "socially responsible" than their shareholders
or even their consumers, and he implies that consumer preference and behavior are the proper and effective
police forces that supersede the need for market regulation. He sees corporations, while viewed by law
as "legal persons", as merely value-neutral institutional respondents of consumer preferences in global
markets. Reich claims that corporate policies, strategies and behavior in market capitalism are effectively
governed by consumer preferences and need no regulation by government. This
is essentially the ideology of neo-liberalism.
Yet US transnational corporations derive profit from global operations serving global consumers to
maximize return on global capital. These transnational corporations will seek to shift production to
where labor is cheapest and environmental standards are lowest and to market their products where prices
are highest and consumer purchasing power the strongest. Often, these corporations find it more profitable
to sell products they themselves do not make, controlling only design and marketing, leaving the dirty
side of manufacturing to others with underdeveloped market power. This means if the US wants a trade
surplus under the current terms of trade, it must lower it wages. The decoupling of consumers from producers
weakens the conventional effects of market pressure on corporate social responsibility. Transnational
corporations have no home community loyalty. Consumers generally do not care about sweat shop conditions
overseas while overseas workers do not care about product safety on goods they produce but cannot afford
to buy. Products may be made in China, but they are not made by China, but by US transnational corporations
which are responsible for the quality and safety of their products.
Further, it is well recognized that corporations routinely and effectively manipulate consumer preference
and market acceptance often through if not false, at least misleading advertising, not for the benefit
of consumers, but to maximize return on faceless capital raised from global capital markets. The subliminal
emphasis by the corporate culture on addictive acquisition of material things, coupled with a structural
deprivation of adequate income to satisfy the manipulated desires, has made consumers less satisfied
than in previous times of less material abundance. Corporations have been allowed to imbed consumption-urging
messages into every aspect of modern life. The result is a disposable culture with packaged waste, an
obesity crisis for all age groups, skyrocketing consumer debt, the privatization of public utilities
that demand the same fee for basic services from rich and poor alike, causing a sharp disparity in affordability.
It is a phenomenon described by Karl Marx as "Fetishism of Commodities".
The relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social
relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labor. This is the reason
why the products of labor become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time
perceptible and imperceptible by the senses … The existence of the things qua commodities,
and the value relation between the products of labor which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely
no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. It
is a definite social relation between men that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation
between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped
regions of the religious world. In that world, the productions of the human brain appear as independent
beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So
it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. This I call the Fetishism which
attaches itself to the products of labor, as soon as they are produced as commodities, and which
is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. This Fetishism of Commodities has its
origin … in the peculiar social character of the labor that produces them.
Marx asserts that "the mystical character of commodities does not originate in their use-value" (Section
1, p 71). Market value is derived from social relations, not from use-value which is a material phenomenon.
Thus Marx critiques the Marginal Utility Theory by pointing out that market value is affected by social
relationships. For example, the marginal utility of door locks is a function of the burglary rate in
a neighborhood which in turn is a function of the unemployment rate. Unregulated free markets are a
regime of uninhibited price gouging by monopolies and cartels.
Thus the nature of money cannot be adequately explained even in terms of the material-technical properties
of gold, but only in terms of the factors behind man's desire and need for gold. Similarly, it is not
possible to fully understand the price of capital from the technical nature of the means of production,
but only from the social institution of private ownership and the terms of exchange imposed by uneven
market power. Market capitalism is a social institution based on the fetishism of commodities.
While Reich is on target in warning about the danger to democracy posed by the corporate state, and
in claiming that only people can be citizens, and only citizens should participate in democratic decision
making, he misses the point that transnational corporations have transcended national boundaries. Yet
in each community that these transnational corporations operate, they have the congenital incentive,
the financial means and the legal mandate to manipulate the fetishism of commodities even in distant
lands.
Moreover, representative democracy as practiced in the US is increasingly manipulated by corporate
lobbying funded from high-profit-driven corporate financial resources derived from foreign sources controlled
by management. Corporate governance is notoriously abusive of minority shareholder rights on the part
of management. Notwithstanding Reich's rationalization of excessive CEO compensation, CEOs as a class
are the most vocal proponents of corporate statehood. Modern corporations are securely insulated from
any serious threats from consumer revolt. Inter-corporate competition presents only superficial and
trivial choices for consumers. Motorists have never been offered any real choice on gasoline by oil
companies or alternatives on the gasoline-guzzling internal combustion engine by car-makers.
Reich asserts in his Wall Street Journal piece that modern CEOs in finance capitalism nowadays deserve
their high pay because they have to be superstars, unlike their bureaucrat-like predecessors during
industrial capitalism. Notwithstanding that one would expect a former labor secretary to argue that
workers deserve higher pay, the challenge to corporate leadership in market capitalism has always been
and will always remain management's ruthless pursuit of market leadership power, a euphemism for monopoly,
by skirting the rule of law and regulations, framing legislative regimes through political lobbying,
pushing down wages and worker benefits, increasing productivity by downsizing in an expanding market
and manipulating consumer attitude through advertising. At the end of the day, the bottom line for corporate
profit is a factor of lowering wage and benefit levels.
Reich seems to have forgotten that the captains of industry of 19th century free-wheeling capitalism
were all superstars who evoked public admiration by manipulating the awed public into accepting the
Horatio Alger myth of success through hard work, honesty and fairness. The derogatory term "robber barons"
was first coined by protest pamphlets circulated by victimized Kansas farmers against ruthless railroad
tycoons during the Great Depression.
The manipulation of the public will by moneyed interests is the most problematic vulnerability of
US economic and political democracy. In an era when class warfare has taken on new sophistication, the
accusation of resorting to class warfare argument is widely used to silence legitimate socio-economic
protests. The US media is essentially owned by the moneyed interests. The
decline of unionism in the US has been largely the result of anti-labor propaganda campaigns funded
by corporations and government policies influenced by corporate lobbyists. The infiltration
of organized crime was exploited to fan public anti-union sentiments while widespread corporate white
collar crimes were dismissed as mere anomalies. (See
Capitalism's bad apples: It's the barrel that's rotten)
As promoted by his permissive opinion piece, a more apt title for Reich's new book would be Superman
Capitalism, in praise of the super-heroic qualities of successful corporate CEOs who deserve superstar
pay. This view goes beyond even fascist superman ideology. The compensation
of corporate CEOs in Nazi Germany never reached such obscene levels as those in US corporate land today.
Reich argues that CEOs deserve their super-high compensation, which has increased 600% in two decades,
because corporate profits have also risen 600% in the same period. The former secretary of labor did
not point out that wages rose only 30% in the same period. The profit/wage disparity is a growing cancer
in the US-dominated global economy, causing over-production resulting from stagnant demand caused by
inadequate wages. A true spokesman for labor would point out that enlightened modern management recognizes
that the performance of a corporation is the sum total of effective team work between management and
labor.
System analysis has long shown that collective effort on the part of the entire work force is indispensable
to success in any complex organism. Further, a healthy consumer market depends on a balance between
corporate earnings and worker earnings. Reich's point would be valid if US wages had risen by the same
multiple as CEO pay and corporate profit, but he apparently thought that it would be poor etiquette
to raise embarrassing issues as a guest writer in an innately anti-labor journal of Wall Street. Even
then, unless real growth also rose 600% in two decades, the rise in corporate earning may be just an
inflation bubble.
To be fair, Reich did address the income gap issue eight months earlier in another article, "An Introduction
to Economic Populism" in the Jan-Feb, 2007 issue of The American Prospect, a magazine that bills itself
as devoted to "liberal ideas". In that article, Reich relates a "philosophical" discussion he had with
fellow neo-liberal cabinet member Robert Rubin, then treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, on two "simple
questions".
The first question was: Suppose a proposed policy will increase the incomes of some people without
decreasing the incomes of any others. Of course Reich must know that it is a question of welfare economics
long ago answered by the "pareto optimum", which asserts that resources are optimally distributed when
an individual cannot move into a better position without putting someone else into a worse position.
In an unjust society, the pareto optimum will perpetuate injustice in the name of optimum resource allocation.
"Should it be implemented? Bob and I agreed it should," writes Reich. Not exactly an earth-shaking liberal
position. Rather, it is a classic neo-liberal posture.
And the second question: But suppose the people whose incomes will rise are already wealthier than
everyone else. Although no one will lose ground, inequality will widen. Should it still be implemented?
"I won't tell you where he and I came out on that second question," writes Reich without explaining
why. He allows that "we agreed that people who don't share in such gains feel relatively poorer. Widening
inequality also further tips the balance of political power in favor of the wealthy."
Of course, clear thinking would have left the second question mute because it would have invalidated
the first question, as the real income of those whose nominal income has not fallen has indeed fallen
relative to those whose nominal income has risen. In a macro monetary sense, it is not possible to raise
the nominal income of some without lowering the real income of others. All incomes must rise together
proportionally or inequality in after-inflation real income will increase.
But for the sake of argument, let's go along with Reich's parable on welfare economics and financial
equality. That conversation occurred a decade ago. Reich says in his January 2007 article that "inequality
is far more worrisome now", as if it had not been or that the policies he and his colleagues in the
Clinton administration, as evidenced by their answer to their own first question, did not cause the
now "more worrisome" inequality. "The incomes of the bottom 90% of Americans have increased about 2%
in real terms since then, while that of the top 1% has increased over 50%," Reich wrote in the matter
of fact tone of an innocent bystander.
It is surprising that a former labor secretary would err even on the record on worker income. The
US Internal Revenue Service reports that while incomes have been rising since 2002, the average income
in 2005 was $55,238, nearly 1% less than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation. Hourly wage costs (including
mandatory welfare contributions and benefits) grew more slowly than hourly productivity from 1993 to
late 1997, the years of Reich's tenure as labor secretary. Corporate profit rose until 1997 before declining,
meaning what should have gone to workers from productivity improvements went instead to corporate profits.
And corporate profit declined after 1997 because of the Asian financial crisis, which reduced offshore
income for all transnational companies, while domestic purchasing power remained weak because of sub-par
worker income growth.
The break in trends in wages occurred when the unemployment rate sank to 5%, below the 6% threshold
of NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) as job creation was robust from 1993 onwards.
The "reserve army of labor" in the war against inflation disappeared after the 1997 Asian crisis when
the Federal Reserve injected liquidity into the US banking system to launch the debt bubble. According
to NAIRU, when more than 94% of the labor force is employed, the war on wage-pushed inflation will be
on the defensive. Yet while US inflation was held down by low-price imports from low-wage economies,
US domestic wages fell behind productivity growth from 1993 onward. US wages could have risen without
inflationary effects but did not because of the threat of further outsourcing of US jobs overseas. This
caused corporate profit to rise at the expense of labor income during the low-inflation debt bubble
years.
Income inequality in the US today has reached extremes not seen since the 1920s, but the trend started
three decades earlier. More than $1 trillion a year in relative income is now being shifted annually
from roughly 90,000,000 middle and working class families to the wealthiest households and corporations
via corporate profits earned from low-wage workers overseas. This is why nearly 60% of Republicans polled
support more taxes on the rich.
The policies and practices responsible for today's widening income gap date back to the 1977-1981
period of the Carter administration which is justly known as the administration of deregulation. Carter's
deregulation was done in the name of populism but the results were largely anti-populist. Starting with
Carter, policies and practices by both corporations and government underwent a fundamental shift to
restructure the US economy with an overhaul of job markets. This was achieved through widespread de-unionization,
breakup of industry-wide collective bargaining which enabled management to exploit a new international
division of labor at the expense of domestic workers.
The frontal assault on worker collective bargaining power was accompanied by a realigning of the
progressive federal tax structure to cut taxes on the rich, a brutal neo-liberal global free-trade offensive
by transnational corporations and anti-labor government trade policies. The cost shifting of health
care and pension plans from corporations to workers was condoned by government policy. A wave of government-assisted
compression of wages and overtime pay narrowed the wage gap between the lowest and highest paid workers
(which will occur when lower-paid workers receive a relatively larger wage increase than the higher-paid
workers with all workers receiving lower pay increases than managers). There was a recurring diversion
of inflation-driven social security fund surpluses to the US fiscal budget to offset recurring inflation-adjusted
federal deficits. This was accompanied by wholesale anti-trust deregulation and privatization of public
sectors; and most egregious of all, financial market deregulation.
Carter deregulated the US oil industry four years after the 1973 oil crisis in the name of national
security. His Democratic challenger, Senator Ted Kennedy, advocated outright nationalization. The Carter
administration also deregulated the airlines, favoring profitable hub traffic at the expense of traffic
to smaller cities. Air fares fell but service fell further. Delays became routine, frequently tripling
door-to-door travel time. What consumers save in airfare, they pay dearly in time lost in delay and
in in-flight discomfort. The Carter administration also deregulated trucking,
which caused the Teamsters Union to support Ronald Reagan in exchange for a promise to delay trucking
deregulation.
Railroads were also deregulated by Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 which
eased regulations on rates, line abandonment, and mergers to allow the industry to compete with truck
and barge transportation that had caused a financial and physical deterioration of the national rail
network railroads. Four years later, Congress followed up with the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 which provided
the railroads with greater pricing freedom, streamlined merger timetables, expedited the line abandonment
process, and allowed confidential contracts with shippers. Although railroads, like other modes of transportation,
must purchase and maintain their own rolling stock and locomotives, they must also, unlike competing
modes, construct and maintain their own roadbed, tracks, terminals, and related facilities. Highway
construction and maintenance are paid for by gasoline taxes. In the regulated environment, recovering
these fixed costs hindered profitability for the rail industry.
After deregulation, the railroads sought to enhance their financial situation and improve their operational
efficiency with a mix of strategies to reduce cost and maximize profit, rather than providing needed
service to passengers around the nation. These strategies included network rationalization by shedding
unprofitable capacity, raising equipment and operational efficiencies by new work rules that reduced
safety margins and union power, using differential pricing to favor big shippers, and pursuing consolidation,
reducing the number of rail companies from 65 to 5 today. The consequence was a significant increase
of market power for the merged rail companies, decreasing transportation options for consumers and increasing
rates for remote, less dense areas.
In the agricultural sector, rail network rationalization has forced shippers to truck their bulk
commodity products greater distances to mainline elevators, resulting in greater pressure on and damage
to rural road systems. For inter-modal shippers, profit-based network rationalization has meant reduced
access - physically and economically - to Container on Flat Car (COFC) and Trailer on Flat Car (TOFC)
facilities and services. Rail deregulation, as is true with most transportation and communication deregulation,
produces sector sub-optimization with dubious benefits for the national economy by distorting distributional
balance, causing congestion and inefficient use of land, network and lines.
Carter's Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) approach to radio and television regulation began
in the mid-1970s as a search for relatively minor "regulatory underbrush" that could be cleared away
for more efficient and cost-effective administration of the important rules that would remain. Congress
largely went along with this updating trend, and initiated a few deregulatory moves of its own to make
regulation more effective and responsive to contemporary conditions.
The Reagan administration under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Mark Fowler in 1981
shifted deregulation to a fundamental and ideologically-driven reappraisal of regulations away from
long-held principles central to national broadcasting policy appropriate for a democratic society. The
result was removal of many longstanding rules to permit an overall reduction in FCC oversight of station
ownership concentration and network operations. Congress grew increasingly wary of the pace of deregulation,
however, and began to slow the pace of FCC deregulation by the late 1980s.
Specific deregulatory moves included (a) extending television licenses to five years from three in
1981; (b) expanding the number of television stations any single entity could own from seven in 1981
to 12 in 1985, with further changes in 1995; (c) abolishing guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment
programming in 1985; (d) elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987; (e) dropping, in 1985, FCC license
guidelines for how much advertising could be carried; (f) leaving technical standards increasingly in
the hands of licensees rather than FCC mandates; and (g) deregulation of television's competition, especially
cable which went through several regulatory changes in the decade after 1983.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act eliminated the 40-station ownership cap on radio stations. Since
then, the radio industry has experienced unprecedented consolidation. In June 2003, the FCC voted to
overhaul limits on media ownership. Despite having held only one hearing on the complex issue of media
consolidation over a 20-month review period, the FCC, in a party-line vote, voted 3-2 to overhaul limits
on media concentration. The rule would (1) increase the aggregate television ownership cap to enable
one company to own stations reaching 45% of our nation's homes (from 35%), (2) lift the ban on newspaper-television
cross-ownership, and (3) allow a single company to own three television stations in large media markets
and two in medium ones. In the largest markets, the rule would allow a single company to own up to three
television stations, eight radio stations, the cable television system, cable television stations, and
a daily newspaper. A wide range of public-interest groups filed an appeal with the Third Circuit, which
stayed the effective date of the new rules.
According to a BIA Financial Network report released in July 2006, a total of 88 television stations
had been sold in the first six months of 2006, generating a transaction value of $15.7 billion. In 2005,
the same period saw the sale of just 21 stations at a value of $244 million, with total year transactions
of $2.86 billion.
Congress passed a law in 2004 that forbids any network to own a group of stations that reaches more
than 39% of the national television audience. That is lower than the 45% limit set in 2003, but more
than the original cap of 35% set in 1996 under the Clinton administration - leading public interest
groups to argue that the proposed limits lead to a stifling of local voices.
Newspaper-television cross-ownership remains a contentious issue. Currently prohibited, it refers
to the "common ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper when the broadcast
station's area of coverage (or "contour") encompasses the newspaper's city of publication".
Capping of local radio and television ownership is another issue. While the original rule prohibited
it, currently a company can own at least one television and one radio station in a market. In larger
markets, "a single entity may own additional radio stations depending on the number of other independently
owned media outlets in the market".
Most broadcasters and newspaper publishers are lobbying to ease or end restrictions on cross-ownership;
they say it has to be the future of the news business. It allows newsgathering costs to be spread across
platforms, and delivers multiple revenue streams in turn. Their argument is also tied to a rapidly changing
media consumption market, and to the diversity of opinions available to the consumer with the rise of
the Internet and other digital platforms.
The arguments against relaxing media ownership regulations are put forth by consumer unions and other
interest groups on the ground that consolidation in any form inevitably leads to a lack of diversity
of opinion. Cross-ownership limits the choices for consumers, inhibits localism and gives excessive
media power to one entity.
Professional and workers' guilds of the communication industry (the Screen Actors Guild and American
Federation of TV and Radio Artists among others) would like the FCC to keep in mind the independent
voice, and want a quarter of all prime-time programming to come from independent producers. The Children's
Media Policy Coalition suggested that the FCC limit local broadcasters to a single license per market,
so that there is enough original programming for children. Other interest groups like the National Association
of Black Owned Broadcasters are worried about what impact the rules might have on station ownership
by minorities.
Deregulatory proponents see station licensees not as "public trustees" of the public airwaves requiring
the provision of a wide variety of services to many different listening groups. Instead, broadcasting
has been increasingly seen as just another business operating in a commercial marketplace which did
not need its management decisions questioned by government overseers, even though they are granted permission
to use public airways. Opponents argue that deregulation violates a key mandate of the Communications
Act of 1934 which requires licensees to operate in the public interest. Deregulation allows broadcasters
to seek profits with little public service programming.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of US telecommunications law in nearly
62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation. It was approved
by Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Clinton, a Democrat
whom some have labeled as the best president the Republicans ever had. The act claimed to foster competition,
but instead it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced
the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005.
The Carter administration increased the power of the Federal Reserve through the Depository Institutions
and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980 which was a necessary first step in ending the New Deal restrictions
placed upon financial institutions, such as Regulation Q put in place by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
and other restrictions on banks and financial institutions. The populist Regulation Q imposed limits
and ceilings on bank and savings-and-loan (S&L) interest rates to provide funds for low-risk home mortgages.
But with financial market deregulation, Regulation Q created incentives for US banks to do business
outside the reach of US law, launching finance globalization. London came to dominate this offshore
dollar business.
The populist Regulation Q, which regulated for several decades limits and ceilings on bank and S&L
interest to serve the home mortgage sector, was phased out completely in March 1986. Banks were allowed
to pay interest on checking account - the NOW accounts - to lure depositors back from the money markets.
The traditional interest-rate advantage of the S&Ls was removed, to provide a "level playing field",
forcing them to take the same risks as commercial banks to survive. Congress also lifted restrictions
on S&Ls' commercial lending, which promptly got the whole industry into trouble that would soon required
an unprecedented government bailout of depositors, with tax money. But the developers who made billions
from easy credit were allowed to keep their profits. State usury laws were unilaterally suspended by
an act of Congress in a flagrant intrusion on state rights. Carter, the
well-intentioned populist, left a legacy of anti-populist policies. To this day, Greenspan
continues to argue disingenuously that subprime mortgages helped the poor toward home ownership, instead
of generating obscene profit for the debt securitization industry.
During the Reagan administration, corporate lobbying and electoral strategies allowed the corporate
elite to wrest control of the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, from conservative populists. In
the late 1980s, supply-side economics was promoted to allow corporate interests to dominate US politics
at the expense of labor by arguing that the only way labor can prosper is to let capital achieve high
returns, notwithstanding the contradiction that high returns on capital must come from low wages.
New legislation and laws, executive orders, federal government rule-making, federal agency decisions,
and think-tank propaganda, etc, subsequently followed the new political landscape, assisting the implementation
of new corporate policies and practices emerging from corporate headquarters rather than from the shop
floor. Economists and analysts who challenged this voodoo theory were largely shut out of the media.
Workers by the million were persuaded to abandon their institutional collective defender to fend for
themselves individually in the name of freedom. It was a freedom to see their job security eroded and
wages and benefits fall with no recourse.
Note
1. Das Kapital, Volume One, Part I: Commodities and Money, Chapter One: Commodities, Section
I.
Next: PART 2: Global war on labor
Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is
at http://www.henryckliu.com.
Hudson is a Wall Street economist who used to work at the Chase Manhattan Bank.
In Part One, he describes the rise of the American empire.
Part Two describes its institutions: the US-controlled World Bank, the World Trade Organization
and the International Monetary Fund, which all benefit the USA. The US has the sole veto power
in all three.
Part Three describes what Herman Kahn called `the greatest rip-off ever achieved', the way
the US's ruling class levies us all to pay for its aggressive wars, just as the Roman Empire levied
tribute to pay for its constant wars. Similarly Britain, Germany and Japan all pay for the US's
military bases in their countries.
In 1945, as in 1918, Britain led Europe's capitulation to the USA's debt demands. The British
ruling class chose dependency on the US ruling class. The USA insisted that Britain ended the
sterling bloc, accepted IMF controls, did not impose exchange controls, and did not devalue. As
Hudson writes, "The Anglo-American Loan Agreement spelled the end
of Britain as a Great Power."
The 1945-51 Labour government's huge spending on unnecessary imperial, counter-revolutionary
wars robbed our industry of investment. This excessive military spending meant that we had constantly
to borrow from the IMF, increasing our dependence on the USA. Now Britain is the USA's Trojan
horse in Europe, against Britain's interests.
Hudson immodestly claims that his analysis supersedes Lenin. He says that the US national
government's interests, not the private interests of the capitalist class, drive the system.
He claims that the US government subordinates `the interests of its national bourgeoisie to the
autonomous interests of the national government'. But is the US government really independent
of the capitalist class? How `autonomous' are these interests?...
This review is from: Super Imperialism - New Edition: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S.
World Dominanc (Paperback)
Super-Imperialism is better viewed as a radical alternative to common undergraduate textbooks
such as Joan Edelman Spero's, "The Politics of International Economic Relations" than as an update
to the theories of Lenin or Hobson. (His background and prose style are similar to Spero's and
his book covers similar ground.)
It has three sections, each which could have been a separate book.
Chapters 1-6 are a history of U.S. international economic relations from World War I through
Bretton Woods.
Chapters 7-10 are a critique of the "The Institutions of the American Empire" (GATT, the
World Bank, the IMF and U.S. foreign aid mechanisms). If you have ever wondered what all of
the huge protests of the World Bank and IMF were all about these chapters are for you.
Chapters 11-15 are about the U.S. economic transition in the late 1960s and early 1970s
from running consistent balance of payments surpluses to running consistent deficits. (We used
to export more than we imported; Now we import more than we export.) At the same time the U.S.
stopped backing dollars with gold, which forced other countries to lend the surplus dollars
created by our trade deficit back to the U.S. government (i.e. to buy treasury notes), thereby
also subsidizing our chronic budget deficits. This is the "super-imperialism" of the book's
title. This situation was still new and strange when the first edition was published in 1972,
and the book's reputation rests on the light Hudson was able to shed on it.
The 2003 Edition has a new introduction and two new chapters at the end. The rest of the book
has occasional new material, but does not appear to have been extensively re-written.
It's a difficult and rewarding book. The difficulty lies partly in the subject matter itself,
partly in Hudson's convoluted prose and partly in the numerous typographical errors that mar the
2003 Pluto Press edition.
The book is rewarding because it's honest. Readers educated in the U.S. will initially regard
Hudson's account with some skepticism. We can't help it; We've been systematically miseducated
by pro-U.S. polemics presented in an "objective" tone.
In contrast Hudson is a strident critic of the U.S. management of the global economy. But so
is any reasonably objective person who is apprized of the facts. I much prefer an author who honestly
tells you the real story as he understands it to one who conceals the awful truth behind an ostensibly
impartial facade. But a "revisionist" has to work twice as hard to make his case, and that is
why the book contains the detailed explication of what reviewer Myers calls the "intricacies of
events and negotiations that gave rise to the present order."
I think an open-minded reader will be won over by Hudson's thoughtful use of contemporaneous
sources (e.g. government publications and articles in the business press) and also biographical
sources to illuminate how key decision makers understood the alternatives, and their motives for
pursuing the policies that they did when forging the post-war economic order. As he places these
choices in context it quickly becomes evident that the motives on the U.S. side have been consistently
aggressive and that U.S. policy makers have all along viewed multilateral economic institutions
as instruments of national policy--to the world's detriment.
Hudson also has a keen sense of the painfully narrow horizon of human foresight. The historical
sections sometimes read like a conspiracy theory in which the conspirators are not very smart.
E.g., Franklin Roosevelt's stubborn insistence that World War I debts be repaid prolonged the
Great Depression; When J. M. Keynes was negotiating Bretton Woods for the newly elected Labour
government, he got them a terrible deal; The U.S. transition to "super-imperialism" which is the
main story of the book (chapters 11 through 14) was originally an unintended consequence of the
huge budget and trade deficits caused by the Vietnam War.
If you are interested in "globalization" this book is an important piece of the puzzle, but
it really only covers up through 1973, and it spends more time on the relationship between the
U.S. and Europe than on "North-South" relations. Having said that, Ch. 8 "The Imperialism of U.S.
Foreign Aid" is very good, esp. how foreign aid benefits the U.S. balance of payments and the
harmful effects of U.S. agricultural exports. China is hardly mentioned.
If you are an economics student and you sense that they aren't telling you the whole story,
or just a thoughtful citizen who wants to sharpen your conceptual tools for understanding and
resisting the strategies of U.S. imperialism, this book is for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Hudson's historical argument in this book is both brilliant and sometimes a bit rough.
Hudson has always had a great talent for interpreting and sketching out for weaker minds like
us what the US government's abandonment of the gold-standard really
means. When Hudson came forward with his thesis in the mid 1970's, his thesis was
outrageous among orthodox economists: to suggest that the US should be worried about the long-term
consequences of running balance of payments deficits year after year, decade after decade was
crazy leftist nonsense in the 1970s. As long as people continue to need the US markets more than
the US needs any other one country's markets (and people still have faith in the good credit of
the US government) there is no reason US could not run balance of
payment deficits forever, according to the conventional wisdom.
What amazes me is that now, after having done exactly what Hudson warned the US government
not to do in the 1970s, many otherwise relatively orthodox economists are beginning to worry about
this. Hudson may be on the more "sky-is-falling" end of things, but
his analysis was right on the nail in 1972 and is still there today: worst case scenario - massive
recession and massive devaluation of the dollar (by massive I mean, unprecedented).
Former US Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin was quoted in March 16, 2006 WSJ as saying that
"The probabilities are extremely high that if we don't address these imbalances, then at some
point, and it could be years down the road, we'll pay a very big price." We are in a limbo world
where no one really knows how this problem is going to play out, but Hudson should be credited
for being one of the first, and longest-running, advocates for addressing this problem. Too bad
it has taken so many decades for people to recognize what he has been telling us all along about
balance of payments deficits.
The rest of the argument Hudson makes in this book is a bit tough to follow, though. Essentially,
Hudson attempts to show how the US has, during this century but especially since WWII, systematically
sought to manipulate all of the great economic institution-building opportunities following WWII
to advance the interests of the US over other countries. Coming off the gold standard and running
up a balance of payments deficit was just one of many ways in which this occurred. The US largely
succeeded. The GATT (now WTO), World Bank, IMF, all bear American "fingerprints".
I agree that the mega-institutions of the contemporary world economic and political machine
are largely the unilateral creation of the US, imposed on the other great nations at a time when
the other nations were particularly vulnerable to US force of will and not particular inclined
to be heterodox visionaries. I also agree that the US in general has probably used as much leverage
as it could in negotiating all of the defining institutions in which it had any hand in constructing.
And yet, how could it have been any different? National governments pursue their self-interest
and the interest of their citizens, often at the expense of other national governments and their
citizens. The nation-state system is set up to work that way. But is the problem really one of
US bad behavior, as Hudson suggests? Isn't the problem really structural? In the nation-state
world, wherein the world is divided up into pseudo-autonomous political monopolies, each individually
endowed with particular strengths and weaknesses, and all pitted against each other in a laissez-faire
system where the only things that keep nation-states from raping and killing each other to oblivion
are, good faith and the fact that the balance of power among the nation-states is enough to keep
each monopoly contained in its behavior towards the other monopolies, what sort of behavior could
we have expected from the US, a nation-state that, at a series of pivotal moments in 20th century
history, found itself with "golden opportunities" to take advantage of other nations' weaknesses
and advance its own power? Would the French, or the Brits, or the Japanese, or the Italians,
or the Germans, or the Russians have behaved any different if they found themselves holding all
the cards in 1945 instead of the US?
My point is, the facts Hudson lays out are correct -- there clearly
is a problem in the way in which our current world order has been put together and the US is at
the middle of that problem. The conclusions Hudson draws from those facts do not
go deep enough in understanding what those facts mean, however.
It isn't that the Americans behave or behaved "bad" by the standard of good behavior implicit
in the nation-state system, it is that the nation-state system itself
to a certain extent reflects 19th century laissez-faire values of autonomy and individuality that
pit nation-states against each other in a world where each is out to improve its lot through trade
and, when possible and tolerable, violence.
The system itself breaks down when one player becomes too powerful.
To blame the US for the systemic problem of massive power imbalances between nation states is
simply pushing any hope for correction in the wrong direction.
FT.com
/ Columnists / Samuel Brittan - The wrong kind of Third Way: When a book entitled Supercapitalism:
the Battle for Democracy in an Age of Big Business (Icon Books) landed on my desk I took it for just
another of the many anti-capitalist diatribes so beloved by publishers. Its author was Robert Reich,
a former US secretary of labour who parted company from the Clinton administration on the grounds
that it was not interventionist enough. But I was glad I persevered. For it turned out to be one
of the most interesting books on political economy to appear for a long time.
During the postwar
decades up to the early 1970s, the Bretton Woods system of semi-fixed exchange rates worked, after
a fashion; and countries seemed able to combine full employment with low inflation and historically
rapid growth and diminishing income differences. Reich calls them a "not quite golden age". It was
"not quite" because of the treatment of women and minorities and the prevailing conformist and authoritarian
atmosphere.
It has been succeeded by what Reich calls supercapitalism, in which the cult of the bottom line
has replaced the cosy oligopolies of postwar decades, once-dominant companies shrink or disappear,
new ones spring up overnight and the financial sector is (or was until recently) in the driving seat.
He rightly dismisses many of the popular scapegoats – or heroes – of the process.
The changeover began well before Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher could influence anything.
Free-market economists have been preaching essentially the same message since the 18th century. It
is extremely unlikely that there has been a radical change in the psychology or morality of business
operators. His own candidate is the technologies that have empowered consumers and investors to get
ever better deals.
Unfortunately, many of these same consumers have lost in their capacity as citizens. He cites
the failure of the political process even to attempt to correct the increasing skewness of US income
distribution. In later pronouncements he has attributed the subprime loan disaster in part to the
failure of supercapitalism to raise the incomes of the mass of wage earners who have been impelled
to resort to borrowing as a substitute. Moreover, Congress has performed abysmally in correcting
market failures in environmental and other areas. He has a non-partisan
explanation: the staggering increase in business lobbying expenditures affecting Democrats as well
as Republicans, as a result of which the political process, far from correcting the distortions of
unbridled capitalism, has made them worse.
But for me the novel point of the book is his utter dismissal of the
prevailing idea of appealing to the "social responsibility" of business to improve matters.
This is a notion that particularly appeals to soft centre politicians such as David Cameron's Conservatives
in Britain as a new kind of Third Way. Reich argues that it is the job of the democratic political
process by laws, taxes and other interventions to harmonise the pursuit of money-making with the
public good. "The job of the businessman is to make profits." He is completely unabashed by the charge
that he sounds like Milton Friedman and indeed quotes the late Chicago professor approvingly several
times. He argues that the so-called stakeholders who insist on being consulted before legislation
is drafted are increasingly companies whose interests might be affected. One result is the "corruption
of knowledge". We should beware of claims that a company is doing something for the public good.
Corporate executives may donate some of their shareholders' money to a genuinely good cause or forbear
from polluting the atmosphere to forestall a greater legal or fiscal burden. But in that case such
actions are likely to be limited and temporary, "extending only insofar as the conditions that made
such voluntary action pay off continue".
Similarly we should beware of a politician who blames a company for doing something that is legal.
Such words are all too often a cover "for taking no action to change the rules of the game". Above
all, "corporations are not people. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual
agreements ... A company cannot know right from wrong ... Only people know right from wrong and only
people act." One example of the "anthropomorphic fallacy" is when companies are held criminally liable
for the misdeeds of their executives. Not only are the genuinely guilty let off too lightly but many
innocent people get hurt. For instance, "the vast majority of Andersen employees had nothing to do
with Enron but lost their jobs nonetheless".
I have two reservations. One is that I cannot share Reich's confidence that a revived and effective
"democracy" would be a cure-all. You only have to see where democratic
pressures are driving US energy policy. Second, there is a danger that the Friedman-Reich
position could inadvertently give sustenance to the "I was only doing my job" defence for evil actions.
You do not have to hold shares in a company selling arms to Saudi Arabia, or work for it. But do
not deceive yourself that such individual gestures can be a substitute for a change in policy.
According to Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, there was a time
when capitalism and democracy where almost perfectly balanced. This was the period of 1945 to 1975,
which he calls the "Not Quite Golden Age." During this period there was a three-way social contract
among big business, big labor, and big government. Each made sure that they as well as the other
two received a fair share of the pie. Unions recieved their wages and benefits, business their profits,
and regulatory agencies had their power. It was also a time when the gap between the rich and the
poor was the narrowest in our history. It was not quite the golden age because women and minorities
were still second class citizens, but at least there was hope.
Fast forward to 2007, capitalism is thriving and democracy is sputtering. Why has capitlism become
supercapitalism and democracy become enfeebled? Reich explains that it was a combination of things:
deregulation, globe spanning computer networks, better transportation, etc. The changes were mainly
a result of technological breakthroughs; unlike many leftists, he is not conspiratorial thinker.
The winner of this great transformation was the consumer/investor and the loser was the citizen/wage
earner. The consumer has more choices than ever before and at reasonable prices. The investor has
unprecedented opportunities to make profits. The citzen, however, is not doing well. The average
citizen does not have much voice - other than voting - in the body politic. And on the wage earner
has been stagnating for many years. The most salient illustration of this trend is Walmart. Walmart
delivers the goods at low prices, but the trade-off is low wages for their employees. We justify
this dilemma, as Reich nicely puts it, because "The awkward truth is
that most of us are of two minds."
As a left-leaning author, Reich makes some startling pronouncements. One, stop treating corporations
as human beings. They are neither moral or immoral, they are merely "bundles of contracts." I couldn't
agree more. Stop expecting corporations to be socially responsible, see them for what they are: profit-seeking
organizations. Any socially responsible action is a ruse to bolster the bottom line anyway. Don't
even encourage them to be socially responsible because it will wrongly lead us to believe that they
are solving problems when they are not. Corporations play by the rules that they are given and it
is up to citizens and their elected representatives to change the rules.
This is no easy task in the age of supercapitalism. There are currently
38,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC in a virtual arms race of spending with each other to
buy favors from our so-called representatives. The only way citizens can compete with
this is not by hiring more lobbyists but advocating through new media outlets such as the internet
and cable tv. This, according to Reich, is currently to most effective way to make government more
responsive.
The question that remains, after reading this book, is will consumers be willing to sacrifice
their low prices to achieve their goals as citizens. If the answer is yes, we can possibly rebalance
the equation between democracy and capitalism; if not, we are left to the not so tender mercies of
supercapitalism.
Robert Reich makes a compelling argument that supercapitalism has robbed democracy of much of
its power. Supercapitalism by the definition presented in the book is
simple--the consumer is king and prices ALWAYS go down. What Reich looks at is the
cost of low prices to companies, society, the individual and its impact on the workings of democracy.
So how is democracy compromised? Reich also points out that the rise
of different lobbying groups, the cost of politics and globalization as contributing to this process.
This isn't a surprise. It has just become more pronounced with time.
It's not due to some large conspiracy or any hidden political agenda as much as it is driven by
consumption. Ultimately Reich argues that it robs the common citizen of any control over democracy.
It's not surprising that this is a highly charged issue because the economics of what benefits society
(or "the common good" as Reich calls it)often gets tangled up in the web of politics.
Reich also points out that the cost of supercompetitiveness, constantly
falling prices is a loss to the economic and social health of America. Reich points
out that everyone wants to get the lowest price possible but he also suggests that we must balance
that with our desire to have decent wages and benefits. He also points out that the move towards
regulation was initiated by government and that corporations went along because it kept out competition
and guaranteed a top and bottom for prices allowing companies to get a profit without fear of cutting
prices so low that it would put them out of business.
I should point out that this is an oversimplification of Reich's points but it does capture some
of the concepts. He also makes some suggestions that would help keep the free market afloat without
undermining democracy and allowing consumers to still benefit from competitive pricing. Since this
is economics we are discussing politics is mixed in and might color whether or not you agree with
his points.
Reich's style is breezy for a book that looks at economics, democracy and the erosion of wages,
benefits. Reich comes across as fair balanced and thoughtful even as he sells his take on what is
undermining American society. Ultimately it's a worthwhile book to read simply because it opens up
dialogue on the social cost of constantly lowering prices and how it impacts those who live next
door to us
Every middle class American should read this book. Many observations about income disparities
have been written up lately but Reich pulls the important points together in a powerful and accessible
way.
Reich's main thesis is that the current transition the US economy is under is misunderstood. Many
of the policy elite (Geithner, Volcker) have repeated the familiar claim that Americans are living
beyond their means. Personally I don't discount that completely but Reich's insight goes much deeper
and rings truer:
"The problem was not that American spent beyond their means but that their means had not kept
up with what the larger economy could and should have been able to provide them."
"We cannot have a sustained recovery until we address it. ... Until this transformation is
made, our economy will continue to experience phantom recoveries and speculative bubbles, each
more distressing than the one before."
Anyone looking at the unemployment data since WWII has to wonder why the unemployment component
of the last three recessions is so prolonged. Instead of a sharp trend up, there are long slopes
of delayed returns to peak employment. (Google "calculated risk blog" and look at Dec. 2010 articles.)
I believe Reich has demonstrated the main culprit this. To be clear, he is not describing the detailed
mechanics of what triggered the Great Recession. (Nouriel Roubini has a good book that I would recommend
for more on the financial fraud, leverage and credit risks involved -
Crisis Economics:
A Crash Course in the Future of Finance. ) But Reich is taking a
long term view and exposes a dysfunctional trait of the US economy that no one can afford to ignore.
It is this weakness that will delay the current recovery and continue to create greater risks in
the future.
Reich draws the parallels between the Great Depression and the Great Recession, particularly the
imbalance of wealth concentrated in fewer hands and middle class workers with less income to convert
into consumer demand. One of the fascinating devices he found to do this was the writings of Marriner
Eccles (Fed chair between '34 to '48):
"As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies
a distribution of wealth - not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -
to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's
economic machinery. Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by
1929-1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served
them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers,
the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify
a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game
where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the
game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."
Reich also shares a couple of powerful and disturbing graphs that show how the middle class has
been squeezed and also how since the late 70s, hourly wages have not only not kept up with the rise
in productivity but have remained essentially flat.
Another driving theme Reich presents is the "basic bargain" and he evokes Henry Ford, the man
that took mass production to new heights and paid his workers well:
"[Henry] Ford understood the basic economic bargain that lay at the heart of a modern, highly
productive economy. Workers are also consumers. Their earnings are continuously recycled to buy the
goods and services other workers produce. But if earnings are inadequate
and this basic bargain is broken, an economy produces more goods and services than its people are
capable of purchasing."
I was concerned early in the book that Reich would leave out some of the important complexities
of the topic but he covered related finances, politics and even consumer/voter psychology in a succinct
yet informative way. His summary of changes to the labor market in the last 30+ years was very good.
His ideas for correcting this were interesting if perhaps difficult to implement politically.
My take away however was that this is a strong indicator of how bad he thinks the situation really
is. Many Americans may be yearning to return to "normal". Reich is the first to thoroughly convince
me that it is not going to happen.
This is a very quick read of 144 pages and is well worth the time.
Finance is a form of warfare. Like military conquest, its aim is to gain control
of land, public infrastructure, and to impose tribute. This involves dictating laws to its subjects,
and concentrating social as well as economic planning in centralized hands. This is what now is
being done by financial means, without the cost to the aggressor of fielding an army. But the
economies under attacked may be devastated as deeply by financial stringency as by military attack
when it comes to demographic shrinkage, shortened life spans, emigration and capital flight.
This attack is being mounted not by nation states as such, but by a cosmopolitan financial
class. Finance always has been cosmopolitan more than nationalistic – and always has sought to
impose its priorities and lawmaking power over those of parliamentary democracies.
Like any monopoly or vested interest, the financial strategy seeks to block government power
to regulate or tax it. From the financial vantage point, the ideal function of government is to
enhance and protect finance capital and "the miracle of compound interest" that keeps fortunes
multiplying exponentially, faster than the economy can grow, until they eat into the economic
substance and do to the economy what predatory creditors and rentiers did to the Roman Empire.
Simon Johnson, former IMF Chief Economist, is coming out in May's 2009 edition of The Atlantic
with a fascinating, highly provocative
piece, on the collusion
between the US' "financial oligarchy" and the US government and how its persistence will contribute
to prolonging the economic crisis. Here is the summary (hat tip to
Global Conditions):
One thing you learn rather quickly when working at the International Monetary Fund is that
no one is ever very happy to see you (…)
The reason, of course, is that the IMF specializes in telling its clients what they don't want
to hear.(…)
No, the real concern of the fund's senior staff, and the biggest obstacle to recovery, is almost
invariably the politics of countries in crisis. (…)
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders (…)
Many IMF programs "go off track" (a euphemism) precisely because the government can't stay
tough on erstwhile cronies, and the consequences are massive inflation or other disasters. A program
"goes back on track" once the government prevails or powerful oligarchs sort out among themselves
who will govern-and thus win or lose-under the IMF-supported plan. (…)
In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent
of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (…).
(…) elite business interests-financiers, in the case of the U.S.-played a central role in creating
the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the
inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the
sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government
seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.
Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis
on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better-in a "buck stops
somewhere else" sort of way-on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain
about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership.
And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for "safety and soundness"
were fast asleep at the wheel.
But these various policies-lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American
economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership-had something in common. Even though some are
traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial
sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial
sector's profits-such as Brooksley Born's now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps
at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998-were ignored or swept aside.
The financial industry has not always enjoyed such favored treatment. But for the past 25 years
or so, finance has boomed, becoming ever more powerful. The boom began with the Reagan years,
and it only gained strength with the deregulatory policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
(…) the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a
belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over
the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country.
(…)
One channel of influence was, of course, the flow of individuals between Wall Street and Washington.
Robert Rubin, once the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served in Washington as Treasury secretary
under Clinton, and later became chairman of Citigroup's executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO
of Goldman Sachs during the long boom, became Treasury secretary under George W.Bush. John Snow,
Paulson's predecessor, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity
firm that also counts Dan Quayle among its executives. Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal
Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco, perhaps the biggest player in international bond markets.
A whole generation of policy makers has been mesmerized by Wall Street, always and utterly
convinced that whatever the banks said was true (…).
By now, the princes of the financial world have of course been stripped naked as leaders and
strategists-at least in the eyes of most Americans. But as the months have rolled by, financial
elites have continued to assume that their position as the economy's favored children is safe,
despite the wreckage they have caused (…)
Throughout the crisis, the government has taken extreme care not to upset the interests of
the financial institutions, or to question the basic outlines of the system that got us here.
In September 2008, Henry Paulson asked Congress for $700 billion to buy toxic assets from banks,
with no strings attached and no judicial review of his purchase decisions. Many observers suspected
that the purpose was to overpay for those assets and thereby take the problem off the banks' hands-indeed,
that is the only way that buying toxic assets would have helped anything. Perhaps because there
was no way to make such a blatant subsidy politically acceptable, that plan was shelved.
Instead, the money was used to recapitalize banks, buying shares in them on terms that were
grossly favorable to the banks themselves. As the crisis has deepened and financial institutions
have needed more help, the government has gotten more and more creative in figuring out ways to
provide banks with subsidies that are too complex for the general public to understand (…)
The challenges the United States faces are familiar territory to the people at the IMF. If
you hid the name of the country and just showed them the numbers, there is no doubt what old IMF
hands would say: nationalize troubled banks and break them up as necessary (…)
In some ways, of course, the government has already taken control of the banking system. It
has essentially guaranteed the liabilities of the biggest banks, and it is their only plausible
source of capital today.
Ideally, big banks should be sold in medium-size pieces, divided regionally or by type of business.
Where this proves impractical-since we'll want to sell the banks quickly-they could be sold whole,
but with the requirement of being broken up within a short time. Banks that remain in private
hands should also be subject to size limitations.
This may seem like a crude and arbitrary step, but it is the best way to limit the power of
individual institutions in a sector that is essential to the economy as a whole. Of course, some
people will complain about the "efficiency costs" of a more fragmented banking system, and these
costs are real. But so are the costs when a bank that is too big to fail-a financial weapon of
mass self-destruction-explodes. Anything that is too big to fail is too big to exist.
To ensure systematic bank breakup, and to prevent the eventual reemergence of dangerous behemoths,
we also need to overhaul our antitrust legislation (…)
Caps on executive compensation, while redolent of populism, might help restore the political
balance of power and deter the emergence of a new oligarchy. (…)
(…) Over time, though, the largest part may involve more transparency and competition, which
would bring financial-industry fees down. To those who say this would drive financial activities
to other countries, we can now safely say: fine".
The nature of financial oligarchy is such that the government's capacity to take control of an
entire financial system, and to clean, slice it up and re-privatize it impartially is almost non-existent.
Instead we have growing, potentially corrupt, collusion between financial elites and government officials
which is hall mark of corporatism in this more modern form on neoliberalism.
In 1998 Mark Curtis wrote The Great Deception: Anglo-American Power and World Order, a
work whose stated goal was to shed light on various myths of
Anglo-American
power in the
post-Cold War era.
Curtis attempts to demonstrate how the United Kingdom remained a key partner of the United
States' effort to enforce their hegemony in the world. He analyzes what he refers to as a
special relationship
between the two countries and concludes that quite serious consequences exist for both states.
Trade for Life: Making Trade Work for Poor People is a work published in 2001. It is a
strong critique of the function of international organizations, especially the
World Trade Organization
(WTO). Curtis analyzes the decisions taken by the WTO in developing states and concludes that these
decisions were seldom without bias against the poor countries; he claims that certain of these decisions,
notably certain structural adjustments, caused their intended benefactors more harm than good. Further,
Curtis regrets that some rules are lacking when their need is called for, noting the relative lack
of regulation checking the growth of power of multinational companies. A partner of Christian Aid
in Zimbabwe has said that "the manner in which the WTO functions, is like placing an adult against
a child in a boxing ring, like
Manchester United against
a local Zimbabwean team.
The WTO judges all countries on the same level, while they are not the same. The WTO must help
create a situation where countries are more equal." This is a quotation that Mark Curtis recycles
throughout his book.
Curtis concludes by saying that market forces can be used in a different, more egalitarian, manner
than the one currently employed by the WTO. He believes that it could benefit developing nations
if this goal was pursued.
His book was edited by ChristianAid while Mark Curtis was "Policy and Politics" Director and is
freely available.
In 2003 Mark Curtis published Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World. This book
has been his most successful to date. It offers a new academic approach to the role of the
United Kingdom in the post
1945 world until the current the
War on Terrorism. It
further criticizes the foreign policy of
Tony Blair. Curtis, defending
the idea that Britain is a rogue
state, describes various relations the United Kingdom undertook with repressive regimes and how
he thinks these actions made the world less just.
Moreover, the book analyzes various recent actions of the
British Army in the world,
describing not only what he characterizes as the immorality of the
War in Iraq, but also of the
War in Afghanistan,
and the Kosovo War. Curtis
denounces equally strongly Britain's alliances with states he categorizes as repressive, such as
Israel,
Russia,
Turkey, and
Saudi Arabia. Additionally,
he details and criticizes the non-intervention of Britain in the
Rwandan Genocide.
Curtis draws most of his research from recently declassified documents by the British secret service.
He notably claims to demonstrate the role and complicity of the British in the massacre of millions
of Indonesians in 1965, the toppling of the governments of Iran and British Guyana, and what he describes
as repressive colonial policies in the former colonies of
Kenya,
Oman, and
Malaysia.
In 2004, Mark Curtis published Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. This book
followed a similar line of thought begun in Web of Deceit. Unpeople is based on various
declassified documents from the British secret service.
Among the declassified secret service reports, Curtis asserts that the United Kingdom had given
aid to Saddam Hussein in
1963 in order that he rised to power in
Iraq; he further posits that the
Western Powers, notably the UK, performed various arms deals with the Iraqi government while the
Iraqi government was involved in the brutal aggression against the Kurdish community. Curtis asserts
that these documents further indict the British government in their role played in the
Vietnam War, the coup d'État
against Idi Amin in 1971, the
coup d'État against Salvador
Allende in Chile in 1973, and
coups in Indonesia and Guyana.
Mark Curtis estimates that approximately ten million deaths throughout the world since 1945 have
been caused by the United Kingdom's foreign policy.
But Johnson is relying on the idea that "America" is a unitary entity, so that the hollowing out
of industry hurts "America", not specific social groups within the country. In reality, US foreign
policymakers work to advance the interests not of "America", but of those same business elites that
have benefited from turning Asia into the world's sweatshop and undermining the unions that built
their strength on American industry. American economic imperialism is not a failed conspiracy
against the people of Asia, but an alliance between American elites and their Japanese, Korean, Indonesian,
and Chinese counterparts - against the potential power of the working majority in all those countries.
But it's more complex than that, too, since the US seeks to prevent the emergence of an independent
military challenge (especially China, but also Japan) to its Asia hegemony while seeking to expand
the power of American commercial interests in the region, even as it tries to keep Asian elites
happy enough with the status quo to prevent their rebellion against it.
In other words, the US system in Asia is more complicated than Johnson conveys, and defending
America's mythical "national interests" will never address its fundamental injustices.
While Johnson seems to have abundant sympathy for the people of Asia, his nationalist framework
prevents his from proposing the only real challenge to American hegemony: a popular anti-imperialist
movement that crosses the barriers of nation-states.
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries,
carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations.
Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political
leaders. When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires
become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or "dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto
Rico, "commonwealths" too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In this book I want to
look at imperialism for what it really is.
Across the Entire Globe
By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation
expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.The
earliest victims of Western European imperialism were other Europeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland
became the first colony of what later became known as the British empire. A part of Ireland still
remains under British occupation. Other early Caucasian victims included the Eastern Europeans. The
people Charlemagne worked to death in his mines in the early part of the ninth century were Slavs.
So frequent and prolonged was the enslavement of Eastern Europeans that "Slav" became synonymous
with servitude. Indeed, the word "slave" derives from "Slav." Eastern Europe was an early source
of capital accumulation, having become wholly dependent upon Western manufactures by the seventeenth
century.
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European imperialism was the Nazi aggression during
World War II, which gave the German business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder
the resources and exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of concentration
camps.
The preponderant thrust of the European, North American, and Japanese imperial powers has been
directed against Africa, Asia, and Latin America. By the nineteenth century, they saw the Third World
as not only a source of raw materials and slaves but a market for manufactured goods. By the twentieth
century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery,
technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment
is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has
accelerated.
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant
view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly
not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century
British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most
universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on
the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world
charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S.
imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
The Dynamic of Capital Expansion
Imperialism is older than capitalism. The Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Mongol empires all existed
centuries before the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Emperors and conquistadors were interested mostly
in plunder and tribute, gold and glory. Capitalist imperialism differs from these earlier forms in
the way it systematically accumulates capital through the organized exploitation of labor and the
penetration of overseas markets. Capitalist imperialism invests in other countries, transforming
and dominating their economies, cultures, and political life, integrating their financial and productive
structures into an international system of capital accumulation.A central imperative of capitalism
is expansion. Investors will not put their money into business ventures unless they can extract more
than they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in the enterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly
searches for ways of making more money in order to make still more money. One must always invest
to realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the face of competing forces and unpredictable
markets.
Given its expansionist nature, capitalism has little inclination to stay home. Almost 150 years
ago, Marx and Engels described a bourgeoisie that "chases over the whole surface of the globe. It
must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. . . . It creates a world
after its own image." The expansionists destroy whole societies. Self-sufficient peoples are forcibly
transformed into disfranchised wage workers. Indigenous communities and folk cultures are replaced
by mass-market, mass-media, consumer societies. Cooperative lands are supplanted by agribusiness
factory farms, villages by desolate shanty towns, autonomous regions by centralized autocracies.
Consider one of a thousand such instances. A few years ago the Los Angeles Times carried a special
report on the rainforests of Borneo in the South Pacific. By their own testimony, the people there
lived contented lives. They hunted, fished, and raised food in their jungle orchards and groves.
But their entire way of life was ruthlessly wiped out by a few giant companies that destroyed the
rainforest in order to harvest the hardwood for quick profits. Their lands were turned into ecological
disaster areas and they themselves were transformed into disfranchised shantytown dwellers, forced
to work for subsistence wages-when fortunate enough to find employment.
North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the
known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But the pursuit of natural resources
is not the only reason for capitalist overseas expansion. There is the additional need to cut production
costs and maximize profits by investing in countries with cheaper labor markets. U.S. corporate foreign
investment grew 84 percent from 1985 to 1990, the most dramatic increase being in cheap-labor countries
like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Singapore.
Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak labor unions, and nonexistent
occupational and environmental protections, U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50
percent greater than in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms, earns about
75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. While profit margins at home sometimes have had
a sluggish growth, earnings abroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development
of what has become known as the multinational or transnational corporation. Today some four hundred
transnational companies control about 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market
and are extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of Eastern Europe.
Transnationals have developed a global production line. General Motors has factories that produce
cars, trucks and a wide range of auto components in Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, Belgium, Yugoslavia,
Nigeria, Singapore, Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and a dozen other countries. Such "multiple
sourcing" enables GM to ride out strikes in one country by stepping up production in another, playing
workers of various nations against each other in order to discourage wage and benefit demands and
undermine labor union strategies.
Not Necessary, Just Compelling
Some writers question whether imperialism is a necessary condition for capitalism, pointing out
that most Western capital is invested in Western nations, not in the Third World. If corporations
lost all their Third World investments, they argue, many of them could still survive on their European
and North American markets. In response, one should note that capitalism might be able to survive
without imperialism-but it shows no inclination to do so. It manifests no desire to discard its enormously
profitable Third World enterprises. Imperialism may not be a necessary condition for investor survival
but it seems to be an inherent tendency and a natural outgrowth of advanced capitalism. Imperial
relations may not be the only way to pursue profits, but they are the most lucrative way.Whether
imperialism is necessary for capitalism is really not the question. Many things that are not absolutely
necessary are still highly desirable, therefore strongly preferred and vigorously pursued. Overseas
investors find the Third World's cheap labor, vital natural resources, and various other highly profitable
conditions to be compellingly attractive. Superprofits may not be necessary for capitalism's survival
but survival is not all that capitalists are interested in. Superprofits are strongly preferred to
more modest earnings. That there may be no necessity between capitalism and imperialism does not
mean there is no compelling linkage.
The same is true of other social dynamics. For instance, wealth does not necessarily have to lead
to luxurious living. A higher portion of an owning class's riches could be used for investment rather
personal consumption. The very wealthy could survive on more modest sums but that is not how most
of them prefer to live. Throughout history, wealthy classes generally have shown a preference for
getting the best of everything. After all, the whole purpose of getting rich off other people's labor
is to live well, avoiding all forms of thankless toil and drudgery, enjoying superior opportunities
for lavish life-styles, medical care, education, travel, recreation, security, leisure, and opportunities
for power and prestige. While none of these things are really "necessary," they are fervently clung
to by those who possess them-as witnessed by the violent measures endorsed by advantaged classes
whenever they feel the threat of an equalizing or leveling democratic force.
Myths of Underdevelopment
The impoverished lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are known to us as the "Third World,"
to distinguish them from the "First World" of industrialized Europe and North America and the now
largely defunct "Second World" of communist states. Third World poverty, called "underdevelopment,"
is treated by most Western observers as an original historic condition. We are asked to believe that
it always existed, that poor countries are poor because their lands have always been infertile or
their people unproductive. In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced
great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through
all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The
Third World is rich. Only its people are poor-and it is because of the pillage they have endured.
The process of expropriating the natural resources of the Third World began centuries ago and
continues to this day. First, the colonizers extracted gold, silver, furs, silks, and spices, then
flax, hemp, timber, molasses, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, calico, cocoa, coffee, cotton, copper,
coal, palm oil, tin, iron, ivory, ebony, and later on, oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt,
bauxite, aluminum, and uranium. Not to be overlooked is that most hellish of all expropriations:
the abduction of millions of human beings into slave labor.
Through the centuries of colonization, many self-serving imperialist theories have been spun.
I was taught in school that people in tropical lands are slothful and do not work as hard as we denizens
of the temperate zone. In fact, the inhabitants of warm climates have performed remarkably productive
feats, building magnificent civilizations well before Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. And today
they often work long, hard hours for meager sums. Yet the early stereotype of the "lazy native" is
still with us. In every capitalist society, the poor-both domestic and overseas-regularly are blamed
for their own condition.
We hear that Third World peoples are culturally retarded in their attitudes, customs, and technical
abilities. It is a convenient notion embraced by those who want to depict Western investments as
a rescue operation designed to help backward peoples help themselves. This myth of "cultural backwardness"
goes back to ancient times, when conquerors used it to justify enslaving indigenous peoples. It was
used by European colonizers over the last five centuries for the same purpose.
What cultural supremacy could by claimed by the Europeans of yore? From the fifteenth to nineteenth
centuries Europe was "ahead" in a variety of things, such as the number of hangings, murders, and
other violent crimes; instances of venereal disease, smallpox, typhoid, tuberculosis, plagues, and
other bodily afflictions; social inequality and poverty (both urban and rural); mistreatment of women
and children; and frequency of famines, slavery, prostitution, piracy, religious massacres, and inquisitional
torture. Those who claim the West has been the most advanced civilization should keep such "achievements"
in mind.
More seriously, we might note that Europe enjoyed a telling advantage in navigation and armaments.
Muskets and cannon, Gatling guns and gunboats, and today missiles, helicopter gunships, and fighter
bombers have been the deciding factors when West meets East and North meets South. Superior firepower,
not superior culture, has brought the Europeans and Euro-North Americans to positions of supremacy
that today are still maintained by force, though not by force alone.
It was said that colonized peoples were biologically backward and less evolved than their colonizers.
Their "savagery" and "lower" level of cultural evolution were emblematic of their inferior genetic
evolution. But were they culturally inferior? In many parts of what is now considered the Third World,
people developed impressive skills in architecture, horticulture, crafts, hunting, fishing, midwifery,
medicine, and other such things. Their social customs were often far more gracious and humane and
less autocratic and repressive than anything found in Europe at that time. Of course we must not
romanticize these indigenous societies, some of which had a number of cruel and unusual practices
of their own. But generally, their peoples enjoyed healthier, happier lives, with more leisure time,
than did most of Europe's inhabitants.
Other theories enjoy wide currency. We hear that Third World poverty is due to overpopulation,
too many people having too many children to feed. Actually, over the last several centuries, many
Third World lands have been less densely populated than certain parts of Europe. India has fewer
people per acre-but more poverty-than Holland, Wales, England, Japan, Italy, and a few other industrial
countries. Furthermore, it is the industrialized nations of the First World, not the poor ones of
the Third, that devour some 80 percent of the world's resources and pose the greatest threat to the
planet's ecology.
This is not to deny that overpopulation is a real problem for the planet's ecosphere. Limiting
population growth in all nations would help the global environment but it would not solve the problems
of the poor-because overpopulation in itself is not the cause of poverty but one of its effects.
The poor tend to have large families because children are a source of family labor and income and
a support during old age.
Frances Moore Lappe and Rachel Schurman found that of seventy Third World countries, there were
six-China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Burma, and Cuba-and the state of Kerala in India that had
managed to lower their birth rates by one third. They enjoyed neither dramatic industrial expansion
nor high per capita incomes nor extensive family planning programs. The factors they had in common
were public education and health care, a reduction of economic inequality, improvements in women's
rights, food subsidies, and in some cases land reform. In other words, fertility rates were lowered
not by capitalist investments and economic growth as such but by socio-economic betterment, even
of a modest scale, accompanied by the emergence of women's rights.
Artificially Converted to Poverty
What is called "underdevelopment" is a set of social relations that has been forcefully imposed
on countries. With the advent of the Western colonizers, the peoples of the Third World were actually
set back in their development sometimes for centuries. British imperialism in India provides an instructive
example. In 1810, India was exporting more textiles to England than England was exporting to India.
By 1830, the trade flow was reversed. The British had put up prohibitive tariff barriers to shut
out Indian finished goods and were dumping their commodities in India, a practice backed by British
gunboats and military force. Within a matter of years, the great textile centers of Dacca and Madras
were turned into ghost towns. The Indians were sent back to the land to raise the cotton used in
British textile factories. In effect, India was reduced to being a cow milked by British financiers.
By 1850, India's debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped
by almost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to
send to Britain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to more than the total income
of the sixty million Indian agricultural and industrial workers. The massive poverty we associate
with India was not that country's original historical condition. British imperialism did two things:
first, it ended India's development, then it forcibly underdeveloped that country.
Similar bleeding processes occurred throughout the Third World. The enormous wealth extracted
should remind us that there originally were few really poor nations. Countries like Brazil, Indonesia,
Chile, Bolivia, Zaire, Mexico, Malaysia, and the Philippines were and sometimes still are rich in
resources. Some lands have been so thoroughly plundered as to be desolate in all respects. However,
most of the Third World is not "underdeveloped" but overexploited. Western colonization and investments
have created a lower rather than a higher living standard.
Referring to what the English colonizers did to the Irish, Frederick Engels wrote in 1856: "How
often have the Irish started out to achieve something, and every time they have been crushed politically
and industrially. By consistent oppression they have been artificially converted into an utterly
impoverished nation." So with most of the Third World. The Mayan Indians in Guatemala had a more
nutritious and varied diet and better conditions of health in the early 16th century before the Europeans
arrived than they have today. They had more craftspeople, architects, artisans, and horticulturists
than today. What is called underdevelopment is not an original historical condition but a product
of imperialism's superexploitation. Underdevelopment is itself a development.
Imperialism has created what I have termed "maldevelopment": modern office buildings and luxury
hotels in the capital city instead of housing for the poor, cosmetic surgery clinics for the affluent
instead of hospitals for workers, cash export crops for agribusiness instead of food for local markets,
highways that go from the mines and latifundios to the refineries and ports instead of roads in the
back country for those who might hope to see a doctor or a teacher.
Wealth is transferred from Third World peoples to the economic elites of Europe and North America
(and more recently Japan) by direct plunder, by the expropriation of natural resources, the imposition
of ruinous taxes and land rents, the payment of poverty wages, and the forced importation of finished
goods at highly inflated prices. The colonized country is denied the freedom of trade and the opportunity
to develop its own natural resources, markets, and industrial capacity. Self-sustenance and self-employment
gives way to wage labor. From 1970 to 1980, the number of wage workers in the Third World grew from
72 million to 120 million, and the rate is accelerating.
Hundreds of millions of Third World peoples now live in destitution in remote villages and congested
urban slums, suffering hunger, disease, and illiteracy, often because the land they once tilled is
now controlled by agribusiness firms who use it for mining or for commercial export crops such as
coffee, sugar, and beef, instead of growing beans, rice, and corn for home consumption. A study of
twenty of the poorest countries, compiled from official statistics, found that the number of people
living in what is called "absolute poverty" or rockbottom destitution, the poorest of the poor, is
rising 70,000 a day and should reach 1.5 billion by the year 2000 (San Francisco Examiner, June 8,
1994).
Imperialism forces millions of children around the world to live nightmarish lives, their mental
and physical health severely damaged by endless exploitation. A documentary film on the Discovery
Channel (April 24, 1994) reported that in countries like Russia, Thailand, and the Philippines, large
numbers of minors are sold into prostitution to help their desperate families survive. In countries
like Mexico, India, Colombia, and Egypt, children are dragooned into health-shattering, dawn-to-dusk
labor on farms and in factories and mines for pennies an hour, with no opportunity for play, schooling,
or medical care.
In India, 55 million children are pressed into the work force. Tens of thousands labor in glass
factories in temperatures as high as 100 degrees. In one plant, four-year-olds toil from 5 o'clock
in the morning until the dead of night, inhaling fumes and contracting emphysema, tuberculosis, and
other respiratory diseases. In the Philippines and Malaysia corporations have lobbied to drop age
restrictions for labor recruitment. The pursuit of profit becomes a pursuit of evil.
Development Theory
When we say a country is "underdeveloped," we are implying that it is backward and retarded in
some way, that its people have shown little capacity to achieve and evolve. The negative connotations
of "underdeveloped" has caused the United Nations, the Wall Street Journal, and parties of various
political persuasion to refer to Third World countries as "developing" nations, a term somewhat less
insulting than "underdeveloped" but equally misleading. I prefer to use "Third World" because "developing"
seems to be just a euphemistic way of saying "underdeveloped but belatedly starting to do something
about it." It still implies that poverty was an original historic condition and not something imposed
by the imperialists. It also falsely suggests that these countries are developing when actually their
economic conditions are usually worsening.The dominant theory of the last half century, enunciated
repeatedly by writers like Barbara Ward and W. W. Rostow and afforded wide currency in the United
States and other parts of the Western world, maintains that it is up to the rich nations of the North
to help uplift the "backward" nations of the South, bringing them technology and teaching them proper
work habits. This is an updated version of "the White man's burden," a favorite imperialist fantasy.
According to the development scenario, with the introduction of Western investments, the backward
economic sectors of the poor nations will release their workers, who then will find more productive
employment in the modern sector at higher wages. As capital accumulates, business will reinvest its
profits, thus creating still more products, jobs, buying power, and markets. Eventually a more prosperous
economy evolves.
This "development theory" or "modernization theory," as it is sometimes called, bears little relation
to reality. What has emerged in the Third World is an intensely exploitive form of dependent capitalism.
Economic conditions have worsened drastically with the growth of transnational corporate investment.
The problem is not poor lands or unproductive populations but foreign exploitation and class inequality.
Investors go into a country not to uplift it but to enrich themselves.
People in these countries do not need to be taught how to farm. They need the land and the implements
to farm. They do not need to be taught how to fish. They need the boats and the nets and access to
shore frontage, bays, and oceans. They need industrial plants to cease dumping toxic effusions into
the waters. They do not need to be convinced that they should use hygienic standards. They do not
need a Peace Corps Volunteer to tell them to boil their water, especially when they cannot afford
fuel or have no access to firewood. They need the conditions that will allow them to have clean drinking
water and clean clothes and homes. They do not need advice about balanced diets from North Americans.
They usually know what foods best serve their nutritional requirements. They need to be given back
their land and labor so that they might work for themselves and grow food for their own consumption.
The legacy of imperial domination is not only misery and strife, but an economic structure dominated
by a network of international corporations which themselves are beholden to parent companies based
in North America, Europe and Japan. If there is any harmonization or integration, it occurs among
the global investor classes, not among the indigenous economies of these countries. Third World economies
remain fragmented and unintegrated both between each other and within themselves, both in the flow
of capital and goods and in technology and organization. In sum, what we have is a world economy
that has little to do with the economic needs of the world's people.
Neoimperialism: Skimming the Cream
Sometimes imperial domination is explained as arising from an innate desire for domination and
expansion, a "territorial imperative." In fact, territorial imperialism is no longer the prevailing
mode. Compared to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the European powers carved up
the world among themselves, today there is almost no colonial dominion left. Colonel Blimp is dead
and buried, replaced by men in business suits. Rather than being directly colonized by the imperial
power, the weaker countries have been granted the trappings of sovereignty-while Western finance
capital retains control of the lion's share of their profitable resources. This relationship has
gone under various names: "informal empire," "colonialism without colonies," "neocolonialism," and
"neoimperialism. "U.S. political and business leaders were among the earliest practitioners of this
new kind of empire, most notably in Cuba at the beginning of the twentieth century. Having forcibly
wrested the island from Spain in the war of 1898, they eventually gave Cuba its formal independence.
The Cubans now had their own government, constitution, flag, currency, and security force. But major
foreign policy decisions remained in U.S. hands as did the island's wealth, including its sugar,
tobacco, and tourist industries, and major imports and exports.
Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested in acquiring more colonies than
in acquiring more wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure of other nations without bothering
to own and administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the
dollar goes everywhere - frequently assisted by the sword.
After World War II, European powers like Britain and France adopted a strategy of neoimperialism.
Left financially depleted by years of warfare, and facing intensified popular resistance from within
the Third World itself, they reluctantly decided that indirect economic hegemony was less costly
and politically more expedient than outright colonial rule. They discovered that the removal of a
conspicuously intrusive colonial rule made it more difficult for nationalist elements within the
previously colonized countries to mobilize anti-imperialist sentiments.
Though the newly established government might be far from completely independent, it usually enjoyed
more legitimacy in the eyes of its populace than a colonial administration controlled by the imperial
power. Furthermore, under neoimperialism the native government takes up the costs of administering
the country while the imperialist interests are free to concentrate on accumulating capital-which
is all they really want to do.
After years of colonialism, the Third World country finds it extremely difficult to extricate
itself from the unequal relationship with its former colonizer and impossible to depart from the
global capitalist sphere. Those countries that try to make a break are subjected to punishing economic
and military treatment by one or another major power, nowadays usually the United States.
The leaders of the new nations may voice revolutionary slogans, yet they find themselves locked
into the global capitalist orbit, cooperating perforce with the First World nations for investment,
trade, and aid. So we witnessed the curious phenomenon of leaders of newly independent Third World
nations denouncing imperialism as the source of their countries' ills, while dissidents in these
countries denounced these same leaders as collaborators of imperialism.
In many instances a comprador class emerged or was installed as a first condition for independence.
A comprador class is one that cooperates in turning its own country into a client state for foreign
interests. A client state is one that is open to investments on terms that are decidedly favorable
to the foreign investors. In a client state, corporate investors enjoy direct subsidies and land
grants, access to raw materials and cheap labor, light or nonexistent taxes, few effective labor
unions, no minimum wage or child labor or occupational safety laws, and no consumer or environmental
protections to speak of. The protective laws that do exist go largely unenforced.
In all, the Third World is something of a capitalist paradise, offering life as it was in Europe
and the United States during the nineteenth century, with a rate of profit vastly higher than what
might be earned today in a country with strong economic regulations. The comprador class is well
recompensed for its cooperation. Its leaders enjoy opportunities to line their pockets with the foreign
aid sent by the U.S. government. Stability is assured with the establishment of security forces,
armed and trained by the United States in the latest technologies of terror and repression. Still,
neoimperialism carries risks. The achievement of de jure independence eventually fosters expectations
of de facto independence. The forms of self rule incite a desire for the fruits of self rule. Sometimes
a national leader emerges who is a patriot and reformer rather than a comprador collaborator. Therefore,
the changeover from colonialism to neocolonialism is not without risks for the imperialists and represents
a net gain for popular forces in the world.
Chapter 1 of Against Empire by Michael Parenti
Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer.
He is one of the nation's leading progressive political analysts. His highly informative and entertaining
books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/
Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of war – with dire consequences for the whole
of Eurasia. Let's cut to the chase, and plunge head-on into the fog of war.
On March 24, Ukrainian President Zelensky, for all practical purposes, signed a declaration of war
against Russia, via decree No. 117/2021.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks
during a joint press conference with European Council President in Kiev on March 3, 2021.
Photo: AFP / Sergey Dolzhenko
The decree establishes that retaking Crimea from Russia is now Kiev's official policy.
That's exactly what prompted an array of Ukrainian battle tanks to be shipped east on flatbed
rail cars, following the saturation of the Ukrainian army by the US with military equipment
including unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank systems and
man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).
More crucially, the Zelensky decree is the proof any subsequent war will have been prompted
by Kiev, debunking the proverbial claims of "Russian aggression." Crimea, since the referendum
of March 2014, is part of the Russian Federation.
It was this (italics mine) de facto declaration of war, which Moscow took very
seriously, that prompted the deployment of extra Russian forces to Crimea and closer to the
Russian border with Donbass. Significantly, these include the crack 76 th Guards Air
Assault Brigade, known as the Pskov paratroopers and, according to an intel report quoted to
me, capable of taking Ukraine in only six hours.
It certainly does not help that in early April US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, fresh
from his former position as a board member of missile manufacturer Raytheon, called Zelensky to
promise "unwavering US support for Ukraine's sovereignty." That ties in with Moscow's
interpretation that Zelensky would never have signed his decree without a green light from
Washington.
On March 8, 2021, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during observance of
International Women's Day in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP /
Mandel Ngan
Controlling the narrative
Sevastopol, already when I visited in December 2018 , is one of
the most heavily defended places on the planet, impervious even to a NATO attack. In his
decree, Zelensky specifically identifies Sevastopol as a prime target.
Once again, we're back to 2014 post-Maidan unfinished business.
To contain Russia, the US deep state/NATO combo needs to control the Black Sea –
which, for all practical purposes, is now a Russian lake. And to control the Black Sea, they
need to "neutralize" Crimea.
If any extra proof was necessary, it was provided by Zelensky himself on Tuesday this week
in a
phone call with NATO secretary-general and docile puppet Jens Stoltenberg.
NATO
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gives a press conference at the end of a NATO Foreign
Ministers' meeting at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels on March 24, 2021. Photo: AFP /
Olivier Hoslet
Zelensky uttered the key phrase: "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass" –
which means, in practice, NATO expanding its "presence" in the Black Sea. "Such a permanent
presence should be a powerful deterrent to Russia, which continues the large-scale
militarization of the region and hinders merchant shipping."
All of these crucial developments are and will continue to be invisible to global public
opinion when it comes to the predominant, hegemon-controlled narrative.
The deep state/NATO combo is imprinting 24/7 that whatever happens next is due to "Russian
aggression." Even if the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) launch a blitzkrieg against the Lugansk
and Donetsk People's Republics. (To do so against Sevastopol in Crimea would be certified mass
suicide).
In the United States, Ron Paul has been one of the very few voices to
state the obvious: "According to the media branch of the US
military-industrial-congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to
clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more 'Russian aggression.'"
What's implied is that Washington/Brussels don't have a clear tactical, much less strategic
game plan: only total narrative control.
And that is fueled by rabid Russophobia – masterfully
deconstructed by the indispensable Andrei Martyanov, one of the world's top military
analysts.
A possibly hopeful sign is that on March 31, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian
Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Mark Milley, talked on the phone about the proverbial "issues of mutual interest."
Days later, a
Franco-German statement came out, calling on "all parties" to de-escalate. Merkel and
Macron seem to have gotten the message in their videoconference with Putin – who must
have subtly alluded to the effect generated by Kalibrs, Kinzhals and assorted hypersonic
weapons if the going gets tough and the Europeans sanction a Kiev blitzkrieg.
French
President Emmanuel Macron speaks as German Chancellor Angela Merkel looks on after a
German-French Security Council video conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris, on February 5,
2021. Photo: AFP / Thibault Camus
The problem is Merkel and Macron don't control NATO. Yet Merkel and Macron at least are
fully aware that if the US/NATO combo attacks Russian forces or Russian passport holders who
live in Donbass, the devastating response will target the command centers that coordinated the
attacks.
What does the hegemon want?
As part of his current Energizer bunny act, Zelensky made an extra eyebrow-raising move.
This past Monday, he visited Qatar with a lofty delegation and clinched
a raft of deals , not circumscribed to LNG but also including direct Kiev-Doha flights;
Doha leasing or buying a Black Sea port; and strong "defense/military ties" – which could
be a lovely euphemism for a possible transfer of jihadis from Libya and Syria to fight Russian
infidels in Donbass.
Right on cue, Zelensly meets Turkey's Erdogan next Monday. Erdogan's intel services run the
jihadi proxies in Idlib, and dodgy Qatari funds are still part of the picture. Arguably, the
Turks are already transferring those "moderate
rebels" to Ukraine. Russian intel is meticulously monitoring all this activity.
A series of informed discussions – see, for instance, here and here
– is converging on what may be the top three targets for the hegemon amid all this mess,
short of war: to provoke an irreparable fissure between Russia and the EU, under NATO auspices;
to crash the Nord Steam 2 pipeline; and to boost profits in the weapons business for the
military-industral complex.
So the key question then is whether Moscow would be able to apply a Sun Tzu move short of
being lured into a hot war in the Donbass.
On the ground, the outlook is grim. Denis Pushilin, one of the top leaders of the Lugansk
and Donetsk people's republics, has stated that the chances of avoiding war are "extremely
small." Serbian sniper Dejan Beric – whom I met in Donetsk in 2015 and who is a certified
expert on the ground – expects a Kiev attack in early May .
The extremely controversial Igor Strelkov, who may be termed an exponent of "orthodox
socialism," a sharp critic of the Kremlin's policies who is one of the very few warlords who
survived after 2014, has unequivocally
stated that the only chance for peace is for the Russian army to control Ukrainian
territory at least up to the Dnieper river. He stresses that a war in April is "very likely";
for Russia war "now" is better than war later; and there's a 99% possibility that Washington
will not fight for Ukraine.
On this last item at least Strelkov has a point; Washington and NATO want a war fought to
the last Ukrainian.
Rostislav Ischenko, the top Russian analyst of Ukraine whom I had the pleasure of meeting in
Moscow in late 2018, persuasively argues
that, "the overall diplomatic, military, political, financial and economic situation powerfully
requires the Kiev authorities to intensify combat operations in Donbass.
"By the way," Ischenko added, "the Americans do not give a damn whether Ukraine will hold
out for any time or whether it will be blown to pieces in an instant. They believe they stand
to gain from either outcome."
Gotta defend Europe
Let's assume the worst in Donbass. Kiev launches its blitzkrieg. Russian intel documents
everything. Moscow instantly announces it is using the full authority conferred by the UNSC to
enforce the Minsk 2 ceasefire.
In what would be a matter of 8 hours or a maximum 48 hours, Russian forces smash the whole
blitzkrieg apparatus to smithereens and send the Ukrainians back to their sandbox, which is
approximately 75km north of the established contact zone.
In the Black Sea, incidentally, there's no contact zone. This means Russia may send out all
its advanced subs plus the surface fleet anywhere around the "Russian lake": They are already
deployed anyway.
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks on as Novator Design Bureau
director-general Farid Abdrakhmanov and Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko shake hands
during a signing ceremony for government contracts in Alabino, Moscow region, Russia. on June
27, 2019. Photo: AFP / Alexei Druzhinin / Sputnik
Once again Martyanov lays down the law when he predicts, referring to a group of Russian
missiles developed by the Novator Design Bureau: "Crushing Ukies' command and control system is
a matter of few hours, be that near border or in the operational and strategic Uki depth.
Basically speaking, the whole of the Ukrainian 'navy' is worth less than the salvo of 3M54 or
3M14 which will be required to sink it. I think couple of Tarantuls will be enough to finish it
off in or near Odessa and then give Kiev, especially its government district, a taste of modern
stand-off weapons."
The absolutely key issue, which cannot be emphasized enough, is that Russia will not
(italics mine) "invade" Ukraine. It doesn't need to, and it doesn't want to. What Moscow will
do for sure is to support the Novorossiya people's republics with equipment, intel, electronic
warfare, control of airspace and special forces. Even a no-fly zone will not be necessary; the
"message" will be clear that were a NATO fighter jet to show up near the frontline, it would be
summarily shot down.
And that brings us to the open "secret" whispered only in informal dinners in Brussels, and
chancelleries across Eurasia: NATO puppets do not have the balls to get into an open conflict
with Russia.
One thing is to have yapping dogs like Poland, Romania, the Baltic gang and Ukraine
amplified by corporate media on their "Russian aggression" script. Factually, NATO had its
collective behind unceremoniously kicked in Afghanistan. It shivered when it had to fight the
Serbs in the late 1990s. And in the 2010s, it did not dare fight the Damascus and Axis of
Resistance forces.
When all fails, myth prevails. Enter the US Army occupying parts of Europe to "defend" it
against – who else? – those pesky Russians.
That's the rationale behind the annual US Army
DEFENDER-Europe 21 , now on till the end of June, mobilizing 28,000 soldiers from the US
and 25 NATO allies and "partners."
This month, men and heavy equipment pre-positioned in three US Army depots in Italy, Germany
and the Netherlands will be transferred to multiple "training areas" in 12 countries. Oh, the
joys of travel, no lockdown in an open air exercise since everyone has been fully vaccinated
against Covid-19.
Pipelineistan uber alles
Nord Stream 2 is not a big deal for Moscow; it's a Pipelineistan inconvenience at best.
After all the Russian economy did not make a single ruble out of the not yet existent pipeline
during the 2010s – and still it did fine. If NS2 is canceled, there are plans on the
table to redirect the bulk of Russian gas shipments towards Eurasia, especially
China.
Connecting German infrastructure for Nord Stream 2 is in place. In this handout photo
released February 4, 2020, by the press service of Eugal, a view shows the Eugal pipeline, in
Germany. The Eugal pipeline, which will receive gas from Nord Stream 2 in the future, has
reached full pumping capacity, and the second line of the pipeline has been introduced. Photo:
AFP / Press-service of Eugal / Sputnik
In parallel, Berlin knows very well that canceling NS2 will be an extremely serious breach
of contract – involving hundreds of billions of euros; it was Germany that requested the
pipeline to be built in the first place.
Germany's energiewende ("energy transition" policy) has been a disaster. German
industrialists know very well that natural gas is the only alternative to nuclear energy. They
are not exactly fond of Berlin becoming a mere hostage, condemned to buy ridiculously expensive
shale gas from the hegemon – even assuming the egemon will be able to deliver, as its
fracking industry is in shambles. Merkel explaining to German public opinion why they must
revert to using coal or buy shale from the US will be a sight to see.
As it stands, NATO provocations against NS2 proceed unabated – via warships and
helicopters. NS2 needed a permit to work in Danish waters, and it was granted only a month ago.
Even as Russian ships are not as fast in laying pipes as the previous ships from Swiss-based
Allseas
, which backed down, intimidated by US sanctions, the Russian Fortuna is making steady
progress, as noted by analyst Petri Krohn: one kilometer a day on its best days, at least 800
meters a day. With 35 km left, that should not take more than 50 days.
Conversations with German analysts reveal a fascinating shadowplay on the energy front
between Berlin and Moscow – not to mention Beijing. Compare it with Washington: EU
diplomats complain there's absolutely no one to negotiate with regarding NS2. And even assuming
there would be some sort of deal, Berlin is inclined to admit Putin's judgment is correct: the
Americans are "not agreement-capable." One just needs to look at the record.
Behind the fog of war, though, a clear scenario emerges: the deep state/NATO combo using
Kiev to start a war as a Hail Mary pass to ultimately bury NS2, and thus German-Russian
relations.
At the same time, the situation is evolving towards a possible new alignment in the heart of
the "West": US/UK pitted against Germany/France. Some Anglosphere exceptionals are certainly
more Russophobic than others.
The toxic encounter between Russophobia and Pipelineistan will not be over even if NS2 is
completed. There will be more sanctions. There will be an attempt to exclude Russia from SWIFT.
The proxy war in Syria will intensify. The hegemon will go no holds barred to keep creating all
sorts of geopolitical harassment against Russia.
What a nice wag-the-dog op to distract domestic public opinion from massive money printing
masking a looming economic collapse. As the empire crumbles, the narrative is set in stone:
it's all the fault of "Russian aggression."
Well, I'm hoping the Ukrainians will finally remember Bernard Lewis's warning about the
U.S. and realize they are being used like a Kleenex: "America is harmless as an enemy but
treacherous as a friend."
Americans have had it and will never tolerate sending combat troops into a Russia/Ukraine
conflict no matter how much rah-rah let's you and him fight we'll hold your coat for you,
faux patriotism the lugenpresse throw at them. Those of us who volunteered for the US
military in the past have learned our lesson.
"The problem is Merkel and Macron don't control NATO." I don't know how a decision is made
whether NATO will go to war or not but if Germany and France have no say in whether their
soldiers will be sent to war or not, that must by a very scary thought for them.
I found the following analysis interesting and I think it makes sense. It suggests France
and Germany have a say in matters and that they oppose any offensive Ukraine has in mind. The
commentator analyzes the diplomatic language and Germany and France appear to be fed up.
Without coming out and saying so directly, they see things more as Russia does than Ukraine.
It's very unfortunate things have developed this way for Ukraine. In addition, if Merkel
wants to be perceived as a complete failure as chancellor in Germany, only then will she let
NS2 be stopped from being completed. This analysis suggests there may be some strain between
France and Germany versus the USA.
I do have to disagree. If Ukraine start a war Russia must take back all eastern part of
Ukraine that has prevalent Russian population. Odessa and Zaporozhie is particularly
important. Russia must also tale all Kiev area back.
1. Senior Ukrainian officers were once Soviet officers. They, and most of their troops,
don't want to fight Russians and know it's foolish. The Ukrainian army will crumble if they
come in contact with regular Russian troops. It's not that they are cowards, but sane. It
would be like Canadian troops ordered to attack across the American border.
2. The American empire is furious and concerned that its long-time puppet disobeyed
orders. Germany wants Russian gas and the empire wants that pipeline stopped. Not only to
hurt Russia, but to teach the Germans a lesson. If fighting occurs in the Ukraine, would the
Germans dare to buy natgas from evil Russians?
3. Most importantly, Israel controls the American government. A major goal is the
destruction of Syria to allow the expansion of Greater Israel, as explained in the video
below. This nearly succeeded until the Russians intervened. Fighting in Ukraine would divert
Russian military resources from Syria so that nation can be destroyed, or Russia may give up
Syrian support as part of a grand peace deal.
The Biden administration is fully supportive of finishing off Syria and Lebanon, then
moving on to destroy Iran. The new talks about Iran's nuclear program will go nowhere. It's
just a show so Biden can say he tried.
It makes all the difference when the revolving-door regulator-capture reframing is not
"USA/Nato vs Russia" -- but rather the more accurate "Raytheon (et al) vs Russia."
The modern truth is: Russia and China have governments in control of policy and industry.
The USA (and therefore also its yapping poodle collection) have Industry setting policy and
running government for their 1%-er shareholder benefits.
Part of me wants to think that the Ukies will want to fold at the last moment. Yet all
this apparent evidence points to their going for it and promptly getting their collective
noses smashed in. Those who speculate in meta-political geo-strategic analysis cannot make
sense of the moves by the largely incompetent shot-callers and their even more incompetent
minions who cut the orders to their chessmen.
Heavy pressure by the equally incompetent regime in the Di$trict of Corruption, where
carrot and stick are equally in play, is as Escobar points out, the force behind this nearly
automatic death-sentence for the Kiev regime and the poor slobs who make up the draftee
elements in the Ukrainian military.
Again, geopolitically, one wonders at the deeper string-pullers within the Pentagram, the
CIA and the mass media of mind-control and message-massaging. Is this essentially a move to
keep the American people–most particularly the edjumacated managerial and technical
classes who make up the core of the alleged "middle-class"–"on message and in
line"?
Yes, the WarDefense industry (aka Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex") insist on
ongoing wars and threats of war to maintain their profit margins for the prime owners of that
false economic basis,prime actors such as the Rottenchild Crime Clan and the rest of the
parasites clustered in City of London and Wall $treet.
How will the canny and ever wary Russians proceed? Will they operate in the manner that
Escobar proposes, by not directly employing the considerable ground-forces which now stand on
alert just to the eastwards of their mutually agreed upon Swiss-cheese border with the
Novorussians in Donetsk and Luhansk? Or will Russian strategy be somewhat more comprehensive
by liberating the rest of the primarily Russian-speaking parts of eastern and southern
Ukraine which had largely backed the overthrown legitimate government of that bedizened
composite nation and are still smarting under the heels of the Galician fascists and the
smaller grouping of Russophobic Ukrainian nationalists who still harbor nightmares about the
Bolshevik/Stalinoid Holodomar? There are, after all human considerations which may influence
Kremlin policy.
Should Russia decide to make a move, it is my projection that they would never be likely
to even attempt to occupy central Ukraine and would set a stop-line well to the east of Kiev.
Something that bemusingly intrigues me is the Belarus factor. It would appear that the Minsk
regime, smarting from the attempted coup by the Poles, Baltic states and Ukraine backing of
"pro-Westerners, may be mobilizing to get into the action and perhaps readjust their
boundaries somewhat southwards. This could indicate a countering move by the Uniates in
Galicia to make common cause with their Roman Catholic brethren in the afore-mentioned Poland
along with Lithuania and remove their lands of control from a shattered Ukraine and form a
confederation with their neighbors to the west.
There is little doubt in my mind that Russia has numerous human assets in central and
southwestern Ukraine, who along with elements of a disintegrating Ukie military, would unite
to overthrow the rotten regime in Kiev and establish a markedly neutral smaller but more
cohesive Ukraine–a natural though smaller nation which could serve as an essential
buffer between a strengthening Russia and a collection of NATO nations which would then
comprise a hodgepodge of hawks and doves, a discombobulated collection of politico-economic
entities attempting to swim their ways to calmer shores or to maintain some semblance of
"Great Reset" programming in the face of popular resistance to lockdowns and mandated
AstraGenica jabbings.
Worst possible scenario is that someone in the Pentagon-dominated NATO command complex
loses their cool and initiates a conflict that could result in planet-wide chaos and
destruction. One would hope that cooler heads will take a few hits to their expansionist
fantasies and decide to make the best of a failed bit of adventurism and bide their time --
if they feel they have any time remaining before globalist economies hit the skids, leading
to a potential collapse to the myth of progress.
Everyone gets American logic. It's the Ukrainian logic that is truly baffling. Just how
stupid do the Ukrainians have to be to attack when anyone with a brain knows what will be the
outcome?
It makes all the difference when the revolving-door regulator-capture reframing is not
"USA/Nato vs Russia" -- but rather the more accurate "Raytheon (et al) vs Russia."
The modern truth is: Russia and China have governments in control of policy and industry.
The USA (and therefore also its yapping poodle collection) have Industry setting policy and
running government for their 1%-er shareholder benefits.
You can't do any Normal business with a Crime Syndicate like the USA/ EU and or Israel.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others. Russia is so close to being self sufficient , they could
turn their back on the West and it's cut throat allies , and just look to the East until the
West implodes. They will have to destroy all armies within close proximity to their borders,
including the Ukrainian/Mercenary one. Moscow must still have Jew Oligarchy baggage, that is
making money on Wall Street and those ties need to break apart or come to a Pro Russian
agreement or else. Rename Kyiv to Berlin 1944, and Lviv to Dresden and take it from there
– and don't look back anymore. And PS : on way to Lviv, Agent Orange every F..n
Monsanto/Bayer, Dupont and Cargil farm – like they did to Vietnam.
Behind the fog of war, though, a clear scenario emerges: the deep state/NATO combo
using Kiev to start a war as a Hail Mary pass to ultimately bury NS2, and thus
German-Russian relations.
Yes but also the Ukraine needs to save those gas transit fees that will go kaput if NS2 is
completed and operational, so it is the Ukraine the one with the most immediate incentive to
start a war. Though they need just a small war, a little war to force the hands of the
Germans to cancel NS2. Problem is the Russians have promised to give the Ukrainians more than
what they bargained for. To save those gas transit fees the Ukrainians may end losing the
country to a puppet installed by the Kremlin.
Escobar, besides not naming the Jew, does not mention which side Israel is likely to
support. We can be pretty certain that whichever side Israel supports is going to be the
victor in this conflict. Turkey is also important because of the Bosphorus, and Turkey and
Israel are working together to exploit the Leviathan gas field to the detriment of Cyprus and
Syria, so Israel can jerk Turkey around like a pitbull on a chain.
The US has been moving drones into Ukraine and they now are right on the border with
Crimea. The US Marines also have a large presence in Romania, also likely including all kinds
of drones. The Israelis are among the planet's leaders in drone technology, and surely own
even more patents. Israel provides much of its drone technology to Turkey, and the
Azerbeijanis used Turkish and Israeli drones in their short war with Armenia. During this
short war the Azerbeijanis shot up all kinds of Russian equipment with their drones including
Pantsir's and ZSU-23's.
The US also has all kinds of stealth drones and missiles, likely that is one area where
they lead the entire planet.
If this assessment is correct (in Russian but comes out OK in Google translate), then the
US / NATO have to get involved to compensate for the lack of a Ukrainian air force –
and in fact the rest of their obsolete equipment.
Personally, I can't imagine US or NATO troops on the ground in the Ukraine – and I
don't see any planning for it, so what's the idea?
One possibility seems to be 1) to start the fighting 2) then start the real game, which
is a massive anti-Russian media barrage "heroic Ukrainian patriots", "Russian atrocities",
"killer Putin" etc. sufficient to finish with Nord Stream 2, divide Russia from
France/Germany, plus reanimate NATO and sanction Russia. Basically to force Europe back into
US hegemony, and away from independent decision making.
They won't have any problem with the UK (their most slavish follower) but at some point
the French and Germans are surely going to become tired of all this CIA/Neo-con BS.
[German Industrialists] are not exactly fond of Berlin becoming a mere hostage,
condemned to buy ridiculously expensive shale gas from the hegemon .
German Industrialists and financiers have been repeatedly shaken down by the hegemon for
fines related to a number of "infractions." The scuttlebutt I've heard from a number of them
is that it got old a long time ago; what point is it to participate in the US market when
your profits are repeatedly clawed back as "fines," and those in the US with whom you compete
are given a leg up not just in the US, but on the world stage. Left to most industrialists,
Germany might have gone its own way years ago. Oddly enough, it is the
Ossivergeltungswaffe who dithers over breaking ranks with the "ally" that openly spied
on her.
And even assuming there would be some sort of deal, Berlin is inclined to admit Putin's
judgment is correct: the Americans are "not agreement-capable." One just needs to look at
the record.
The most recent example would be the Doha agreement on the US withdrawal of forces and
personnel from Afghanistan. Apparently the Pentagon recently awarded a number of contracts
for contractor services in that country for some time well past the "agreed" withdrawal date,
strongly suggesting the agreement to leave was a ruse.
Unfortunately we live in a world where history is/was erased, facts don't matter or they
can be twisted to fit anything no matter how ridiculous, the present is what I say it is.
Thus US and its vassals are just interested in their today's narrative.
Ukrainian leadership is hopelessly incompetent and corrupt so will do anything Biden's gang
tells them. It's simply a depressing scenario.
Blinken poking the Ukies to attack is a Hail Mary to stop NS2. Maybe it will work,
maybe not. But a few hundred or a few thousand dead Ukies is worth the Russian boogeyman
psy-op for the empire.
""Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of War blah blah""
Contrary to what Pepe asserts the rest of the world will not give a shit. Memories of
Chechnya? The sooner Putin over runs the place the better. You can bet the Ukrainian ruling
elite, for all their gumption, have their jets all fuelled and ready with flight plans for
the US via Switzerland...
"NATO puppets do not have the balls to get into an open conflict with Russia."
Sadly not so sure.
Some has it`s own agenda, like POland, Lithuania. Not even NATO/ US are in full control over
that, and needs no more than a misstep. Like activate some system which is potentionally
dangerous for Russia.
Or in different NATO/ US bases elsewhere in continental Europe.
"to provoke an irreparable fissure between Russia and the EU, under NATO auspices"
"When all fails, myth prevails. Enter the US Army occupying parts of Europe to "defend" it
against – who else? – those pesky Russians."
This sounds to be the real goal.
For long since the US is jealous to Europe as it became more and more equal in economic and
political power, and prevail better even with this "global pandemic".
EU wants more independence, US wants it`s colony to more obidient and follow commands.
If not just occupy, but "let" Europe partly destroyed even better: the treat of dominance
reduced, and again can be the "nice savior" who helps and "brings democracy".
So seems far too real in the Ukrainian conflict Ukraine is just a side character.
Good point. They simply can't "win" anything by attacking.
The (((US))) will provide plenty of encouragement and support as long as they get
mountains of Ukrainian corpses in return. Those corpses can then be photographed and the
photos broadcast all over the world as "proof" that Putin is Hitler. Basically, Ukrainians
are being funnelled into the meat grinder for a globohmo psyop opportunity. What a way to
die...
Are you referring to the Ukraine fiasco? Would that it were so that it was just a
distraction. Just apply some reverse engineering to how Germany and Russia have a pretext to
link up energy-wise when Ukraine was a perfectly serviceable transit point until NeoCon filth
started working their magic.
Indeed, let's not worry: German Chancellor Merkel spoke to President Putin yesterday and
apparently told him she wanted to see immediate de-escalation or else she might not sell Russia
any German cars; or buy Russian vaccine; or complete Nord-Stream 2 and tie the German economy
into Russian gas supplies. Isn't realpolitik a German word originally?
"Destiny guides our fortunes more favourably than we could have expected. Look there,
Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do
battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich
ourselves. This is noble, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such
an evil race wiped from the face of the earth."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"The ones you can see over there," answered his master, "with the huge arms, some of which
are very nearly two leagues long."
"Now look, your grace," said Sancho, "what you see over there aren't giants, but
windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and
turn the millstone."
"Obviously," replied Don Quixote, "you don't know much about adventures."
Or labour vs. capital; or realpolitik. But Happy Friday!
GreatCaesar'sGhost 1 hour ago
No nato troops will ever set foot in Ukraine. They're trying to pressure Russia into doing
something so they can force the Germans to stop nordstream. The Ukrainians can't win here and
they're being used. Not good.
USAllDay 56 minutes ago
Germans need the gas and Russia needs the revenue. These are facts that can not
change.
GreatCaesar'sGhost 53 minutes ago
US has gas to sell. Greater Israel and their Saudi partners believe that after they
overthrow Assad they will have gas to sell. I'm not sure the constantly virtue signaling
German government will buy Russian gas if there's a war.
BeePee 43 minutes ago
Russia already sells gas. This will continue. Mistake to destablize Russia's economy.
GreatCaesar'sGhost 53 minutes ago
US has gas to sell. Greater Israel and their Saudi partners believe that after they
overthrow Assad they will have gas to sell.
I'm not sure the constantly virtue signaling German government will buy Russian gas if
there's a war.
land_of_the_few 51 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
They should just mock them mercilessly.
Formation flypasts with rainbow colored smoke, Village People blasting from frigates
buzxing them, that kind of thing.
A senior official from Nord Stream 2 AG, the project company leading the Nord Stream 2 Russia to Germany natural gas
pipeline project,
has
reported
an uptick in "provocative" activity from warships and planes in the
area where the pipeline is being built
.
"Higher activity of naval vessels, airplanes and helicopters and civilian vessels of foreign states is observed in the work
area after restarted construction of the offshore segment of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, whose
actions
are often clearly provocative
," said Nord Stream AG official Andrei Minin,
according
to the Russian news agency TASS
.
Above: the pipe-laying vessel Fortuna, which is operated by the Russian company KVT-RUS
and recently targeted by US sanctions. Image via Reuters
Minin said a 1.5-mile safety zone is established around the construction area where vessels are not supposed to enter.
"Nevertheless, naval vessels of foreign countries are constantly registered near service ships performing work," he said.
He added that a Polish antisubmarine warfare airplane is
"regularly flying around
the work area at a small height and closely to the pipelay vessel."
Minin said in one provocation,
an unidentified submarine was above surface within
one mile of the pipeclay vessel Fortuna
, a ship that was
hit
with US sanctions on January 19th.
Minin said the activity indicates "obviously planned and prepared provocations."
Besides warships and planes, he said fishing vessels have also come dangerously close to the construction area.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been in the crosshairs of the US for years, but despite sanctions and threats, Nord Stream
AG reported on Thursday
that
the project is now 95 percent complete
. Construction restarted in December 2020 after being suspended due to threats of
US sanctions.
Although it's not clear if the US is involved in these provocations, it is likely. Washington seems willing to take extreme
measures to
stop
the project and is
threatening to sanction its ally Germany
. Besides
the US, another country keen to stop the project is Ukraine,
which
stands to lose up to $3 billion
a year in gas transportation fees if the pipeline is complete.
The original Nord Stream consists of two lines that run from Vyborg, Russia, to Lubmin, Germany, near Greifswald. The new
project would add two more lines, doubling the amount of natural gas Russia could export to Germany.
play_arrow
Be of Good Cheer
1 hour ago
$3
billion loss to the Biden Crime Family. No wonder he wants to stop NS2.
NoPension
1 hour ago
^^^^^!!!
Pair Of Dimes Shift
45 minutes ago
10% to the big guy would be $300M.
Damn right the big guy's handlers are pissed.
Rid'n Dirty
1 hour ago
The
US spends over $1 trillion on "defense" with over 800 bases worldwide, yet we have no control over who
illegally takes up residence here. America has become an ugly hegemon run by Wall Street and other
corporate whores. Almost 2/3rds of the world is under some type of US sanction designed to wreck
economies and starve innocent people (Houthis, Syrians and Iranians).
Let's see if Germany can do what's best for its economy for the first time since 1945.
Based Fren
1 hour ago
It's so tiresome. We just have to stick our finger in everyone else's business.
naro
1 hour ago
Have you heard of the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Wars is their oxygen.....they are looking for
wars wherever they can find it.
ManOnFirst
59 minutes ago
a
Polish fishing vessel rammed a construction ship and blamed a faulty engine for the incident. I really
hate the Poles. They are the whiniest, most cowardly country in the world. They lament the fall of
their empire 1000 years ago and think they could still be a superpower if only the big, bad Russians
weren't so mean. Oh, and the big, bad Germans too.
SoDamnMad
27 minutes ago
I'm
surprised the Russians didn't throw a 3 liter gasoline jug with a burning rag taped to it down on that
fishing vessel. Your telling me no steerage and no engine control. Two can play this game. Poles best
not try to lay any communication cables in the next 20 years.
Games Without Frontiers
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Globalists from the US doing everything they can to prevent a more independent EU. The further away you
can get from a dying and dangerous empire the better.
2banana
1 hour ago
Established by whom?
Oh,
you just made that sh!t up in international waters in one of the most heavily used trade routes in the
world.
Minin said a 1.5-mile safety zone is established around the construction area where vessels are not
supposed to enter. "Nevertheless, naval vessels of foreign countries are constantly registered near
service ships performing work," he said.
Games Without Frontiers
1 hour ago
It's international waters but safety zones are always established on this type of industrial project,
it's hard to enforce in open waters but the West looks like a bunch of tools as usual.
not-me---it-was-the-dog
43 minutes ago
(Edited)
remove
link
....
Shipping
and shipping lanes In Danish waters, the proposed NSP2 route will run inside and along the TSS Bornholmsgat for
approximately 42 km close to the Swedish EEZ. The TSS Bornholmsgat carries most of the ship traffic to/from the
Baltic Sea and experiences over 50,000 ship passages per year. The proposed NSP2 route additionally crosses the
TSS Adlergrund in the Danish and German EEZs, which has approximately 7,000 ship movements per year. Safety
exclusion zones will be implemented around slow-moving construction vessels. Only vessels involved in the
construction of NSP2 will be allowed inside the safety zone; therefore, all other vessels not involved in
construction activities will be requested to plan their journeys around the safety zone. The shipping lanes
crossed by the proposed NSP2 route in Danish waters provide sufficient space and water depth for ships to plan
their journey and safely navigate around possible temporary obstructions. The impact on ship traffic associated
with the imposition of a safety zone is assessed to be minor and associated with local and temporary changes to
the traffic scheme. Therefore, it is assessed that there will be no significant transboundary impacts on Baltic
Sea ship traffic caused by the NSP2 project in Danish waters.
so....umm....since the work is being done in danish waters, well, gosh, i would guess the exclusion zones are set
up with......wait for it......danish authorities. and the last bits in german waters will require german
authorities to set up the exclusion zone.
Ukraine gets 3B a year in transit fees for Russian gas...
rejectnumbskull
15 minutes ago
Besides the US, another country keen to
stop
the
project is Ukraine,
which
stands to lose up to $3 billion
a year in gas transportation fees if the pipeline is complete.
Did
you not read this sentence in the article correctly?
Nice work on pulling all the puzzle pieces together, b!
The really big problem will be weaning the Outlaw US Empire from its addiction to
Unilateralism, which is its primary mode of operation aside from a very brief interlude when
FDR was POTUS, devised the UN and its Charter, and got the Senate to ratify it so it would
become an integral part of the USA's fundamental law of the land.
All one need do to see the gravity of the bolded text is to examine the Outlaw US Empire's
behavior since FDR died--The USA immediately transformed into the Outlaw US Empire on 22
October 1945 when the UN Charter came into full force and the Empire was already in grave
violation of its fundamentals.
That those millions of violations have never seen the inside of a courtroom doesn't mean
they never occurred or aren't now happening globally.
"Nord Stream AG Says Warships, Submarines and Helicopters Tried to Disrupt Pipeline's
Construction":
"However, it seems that in March threats to the pipeline multiplied and became more
'real'.
"The construction site of Nord Stream 2 has been suffering harassment by various vessels
and aircraft in recent months, which nearly led to damage to the pipeline itself, according
to Nord Stream AG representative Andrey Minin. He stressed that the disturbances were
'clearly planned and thoroughly prepared provocations,' devised to stop the joint
Russian-European project in its tracks ." [My Emphasis]
Unilateral Act of War anyone?!! Yes, its the Poles once again.
IMO, it's sad b omitted mentioning the newly formed Friends of the UN Charter Group in his
article since it aims at drowning the "Unilateral, rules based international order" once and
for all time. My promotion of it isn't going to be enough. If all but the Neoliberal nations
become members, then they can jointly aver that there's only one system of international Law
and its based on the UN Charter and all relevant treaties thus shutting up the Outlaw US
Empire regardless its protests. Of course, a movement within the Empire that says the same as
the Friends would go a long ways to getting us where we as humans want to go to--a peaceful
planet that's concerned about the wellbeing of humans and all they need for support instead
of making the rich ever richer through the terror of unremitting Class War.
And if you don't think that War isn't based on Terror, then you haven't seen migrant
families busted up with the little kids being kidnapped and all put into concentration camps.
( China is
beginning to bark up that very inhuman tree watered so well by the Outlaw US Empire.)
"As it stands, Russia is very much focused on limitless possibilities in Southwest Asia,
as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made it clear in the 10th Middle East conference at the
Valdai club [Link at Original]. The Hegemon's treats on multiple fronts – Ukraine,
Belarus, Syria, Nord Stream 2 – pale in comparison."
Awhile ago, I posted the following acutely correct adage: The USA treats business as war,
while treating war as business. I added what Coolidge was misquoted as saying in 1925--The
business of America is business (He actually said, "the chief business of the American people
is business.") So when the POTUS says its just business, you should prepare for war.
Back to the linked article. While reading it ought to be easy to see why the BRI
interconnectivity is seen as a huge threat to the two Outlaw Maritime Empires--UK/US--who
initially set forth the parameters of the Great Game. (BTW,
Lavrov's Great Game program interview English transcript is now complete.) They have no
seat at the table whatsoever. You'll also see why the Outlaw US Empire will try to remain in
Afghanistan forever as well as the reason why it can't admit the real reason for being
there--to interdict the BRI and the development boom it promises to bring to a great many
impoverished people throughout Eurasia. Talk about Human Rights!
But it looks like all the Empire's efforts will amount to little more than a mosquito
attacking an elephant for there's no way it can stop BRI or Eurasian integration; at best, it
can merely delay it and earn the enmity of the planet, including its own people. Clearly,
India will cease its role in the Quad as staying locks it out from what it needs
most--development that uplifts its impoverished tens of millions. And the loss of India means
the certain loss of the Great Game for the Outlaw Empire.
In the grand scheme of things, Ukraine is merely a tsetse fly as is NATO ultimately. The
real prize lies with the geoeconomic riches BRI and Eurasian Integration will generate and
being a partner with it, not an adversary.
Even before the targets in Yemen had been "legally" designated as
a Foreign Terrorist Organization Obama used cluster bombs to shred
dozens of women and children in a failed attempt to hit members of
"al Qaida in Yemen (AQY)".
.
The war crime immediately became a dirty Obama secret, covered up
with the help of the MSM, in particular ABC.
.
An enthusiastic White House had leaked to their contacts at ABC that
Obama had escalated the War on Terror, taking it to another country,
Yemen. This was December 17, 2009 only days after Obama had returned
from his ceremony in Oslo where he proudly accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize.
.
ABC was thrilled with their scoop and in manly voices announced
the escalation in the War on Terror.
.
The very next day ABC went silent forever about it, joining the cover up
of a war crime.
.
Hillary Clinton, by the way, committed her own act of cover up.
Covering her butt by backdating a memo.
.
The designation of a organization as a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization)
is not official nor legal until it is published in the Federal Register.
An oversight? Obama attacked Yemen before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
had done the paperwork to make the killing legal?
.
The designation was not published until a month later, January 19, 2010.
Hillary Clinton back dated the memo she published in the Register with the date of
December 14, 2009, to somewhat cover her butt.
.
Obama's acceptance speech in Oslo for the Nobel Peace Prize was December 10th.
.
Yemen leaders agreed to participate in Obama's coverup saying it was their
own Yemen forces that had accidentally shredded dozens of women and children.
.
Obama was grateful to the Yemen leaders. The Yemen leaders were not
honored in Oslo. But, ironically, Obama ended his speech honoring women
and children, days before he ordered their slaughter.
.
Obama in Oslo, December 10, 2009:
.
"Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty
still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what
few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she
believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's
dreams.
.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will
always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the
intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed,
we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.
We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the
.
hope
.
of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
that must be our work here on Earth.
.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
.
One week later Obama shredded dozens of women and children in Yemen
and covered it up.
.
Here is ABC's Brian Ross using his most masculine voice to boast about Obama's attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcg3TNSRPs
.
Wikileaks cable corroborates evidence of US airstrikes in Yemen (Amnesty Intl)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen/
.
Actual cable at Wikileaks: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10SANAA4_a.html
.
More at ABC [12/18/2009]: https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236">https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr">https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
More content below More content below More content below More content below More content below
More content below More content below More content below
BERLIN, Sept 21 (Reuters) - Gas contributes only a fraction of Germany's energy consumption,
and Russian gas only a fraction of that, so it is wrong to say that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
will make Germany dependent on Russian energy, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said.
Asked about the flagship Kremlin project, which has been heavily criticised by the United
States and some European countries, Scholz on Monday restated the German government's position
that the pipeline was a private investment and should not be the target of U.S. sanctions.
The poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, blamed by most Western governments on
Russian state actors, has led to renewed calls for the nearly complete pipeline, built by
state-owned Gazprom, to be cancelled.
Critics of the pipeline say it increases Germany's reliance on Russian energy and deprives
transit countries Poland and Ukraine of crucial leverage over the giant country to their east.
(Reporting by Thomas Escritt; Editing by Maria Sheahan)
A draft copy of the accord that surfaced on media last year showed plans for long-term
supply of Iranian crude to China as well as investment in oil, gas, petrochemical, renewables
and nuclear energy infrastructure.
Lured by the prospect of cheaper prices, China has already
increased its imports of Iranian oil to around 1 million barrels a day, eroding U.S.
leverage as it prepares to enter stalled talks with Tehran to revive a nuclear deal.
The Biden administration has indicated that it's open to reengaging with Iran after
then-President Donald Trump abandoned the accord nearly three years ago and reimposed economic
sanctions, but the two sides have yet to even agree to meet. Iran exported around 2.5 million
barrels of oil a day before American penalties resumed.
Iran's closer integration with China may help shore up its economy against the impact of the
U.S. sanctions, while sending a clear signal to the White House of Tehran's intentions. Wang
Yi, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, also met with Rouhani to discuss the nuclear deal.
In a televised speech, Rouhani raised the prospect of restrictions being eased before the
end of his second and final term as president in early August.
"We're ready for the lifting of sanctions," he said on Saturday. "If obstacles are removed,
all or at least some sanctions can be lifted."
No additional details of the agreement were revealed as Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi took part in a ceremony marking the event.
The deal marked the first time Iran has signed such a lengthy agreement with a major world
power. In 2001, Iran and Russia signed a 10-year cooperation agreement, mainly in the nuclear
field, that was lengthened to 20 years through two five-year extensions.
Before the ceremony Saturday, Yi met Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and special Iranian
envoy in charge of the deal Ali Larijani.
Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Friday called the agreement
"deep, multi-layer and full-fledged."
The deal, which had been discussed since 2016, also supports tourism and cultural exchanges.
It comes on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and
Iran.
The two countries have had warm relations and both took part in a joint naval exercise in
2019 with Russia in the northern Indian Ocean.
Reportedly, Iran and China have done some $20 billion in trade annually in recent years.
That's down from nearly $52 billion in 2014, however, because of a decline in oil prices and
U.S. sanctions imposed in 2018 after then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally
out of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, saying it needed to be renegotiated.
Iran has pulled away from restrictions imposed under the deal under those sanctions in order
to put pressure on the other signatories -- Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China -- to
provide new economic incentives to offset U.S. sanctions.
Thanks Dennis.
It is easy for us to discount the production capacity of Iran, however this could be a
mistake.
If China needs oil it will fund production in Iran, regardless of the 'worlds' concern over
Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions [very aggressive ambitions that are largely
theocratically driven].
This weekend-
'Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement
The agreement covers a variety of economic activity from oil and mining to promoting industrial
activity in Iran, as well as transportation and agricultural collaboration.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/iran-china-agreement-478236
Germany is showing signs of an independent Russia policy. The main issue between the United
States, Europe, and Russia now is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would carry gas from Russia
to Germany. The Biden Administration may impose
sanctions on companies that help build it, which
risks a blowup with Berlin .
Most Republicans want
even sterner measures . Senator Ted Cruz is
delaying confirmation of some of President Biden's officials unless he takes action.
Hostility towards Russia is one of the few issues that unite Republicans and Democrats
– along with support for
citizenship for illegal immigrants ,
interference in Syria, keeping
troops in Afghanistan , and thwarting
China . We can't count on Republicans or Democrats to stand up for Americans, but we can
count on support for invading the world and inviting the world. This combination of an
aggressive foreign policy and indifference towards citizens is why some call the current regime
the
Globalist American Empire (GAE). It may be based in Washington DC, but it has nothing to do
with the historic American nation or its interests.
However, what I call the " American Paradox "
may doom this "empire." It is run by people who seem to care nothing for the country; the
empire is built on sand.
@Anonymous that a strong American military and national security posture is the best
guarantor of peace and the survival of our values and civilization.
Stavridis has been at the forefront of the mass slaughter known as the implementation of the
Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz Israel:
From 2002 to 2004, Stavridis commanded Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, conducting combat
operations in the Persian Gulf in support of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom.
Stavridis "oversaw operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria." In short, this prominent
racketeer is dripping with the blood of hundreds of thousands of the victims.
"China and the US are two major world powers. No matter how many disputes they have, the
two countries should not impulsively break their relations. Coexistence and cooperation are
the only options for China and the US. Whether we like it or not, the two countries should
learn to patiently explore mutual compromises and pursue strategic win-win cooperation ."
[My Emphasis]
The big question: Does the Outlaw US Empire possess enough wisdom to act in that
manner.
...., the US neurotic dynamic is to escalate blindly until it achieves control. This is
the dynamic that must be defeated.
Yes that's problem all right, but can you ever defeat that dynamic given that the gorilla
owns 10,000 nukes and has no moral qualms whatsoever of using them? Until a near perfect
anti-nuke defense system is developed I surmise the world would just have to live with, and
get used to, the juvenile antics of King Kong because it has stated time and again it would
escalate all the way up to using its nukes, because that's what they are for according
to a former Sec. of State.
I'm a pessimist on this issue. I'm afraid we'll just have to endure and live with a wild
beast for a while to come.
i've been a reader of moa for quite a few years now, but never contributed to the forum.
mostly because after a while i found what i wanted to say anyway, and why pile on?
I really enjoy the civility of the forum, and it's internationality. And of course b's
insights. as a German myself I share many points of view with him in matters i have knowledge
in, or think that i do.
For example i think that trump sure might be seen as a disaster by many, but it was a gift
to Europe, and Germany in particular, because he opened the eyes of many, many people here
who for decades thought murrica is our friend, our big brother, who will always protect us
from the evil of the world - namely communism, Russia and lately china. a majority of the
people here, as well as in the rest of the so called "western world" have been brainwashed
for about 7 decades to think that way, even when America committed the most obvious, heinous,
horrible crimes against humanity and our civilization as a whole.
there was always a spin, "human rights", "democracy", "free trade" and so on, values that
had to be "defended" - when in reality it was always an offensive aggression or even a
"pre-emptive strike". people just swallowed what the media fed them and went on with their
daily chores.
Trump changed that, suddenly the ugly side of the empire became visible, and i will always
be grateful for that. because now it cannot be hidden anymore. it wasn't just the unruly
behaviour of a "new rich" and uneducated bully who accidentally became president.
politically, the general attitude was always the same, trump only worded it much more
obvious, making it harder for politicians and media to spin. that's why our politicians and
media (for the most part fed by trans-atlantic "think tanks") hated him almost more than
Americans themselves - he made their lies obvious and transparent. if it wasn't so sad, it
sometimes was almost funny to see them squirm, having to explain why our friend and protector
suddenly became so selfish and hostile.
All of them welcomed of course the new Harris administration, being so progressive, just
and friendly again - only to witness a change of paradigm they probably didn't even think
trump was capable of, or willing to: i think in later years, this week will mark the
"official" beginning of the new cold war era. this behaviour against Russia and china was not
a slap, but a punch in the face and will NEVER be forgiven nor forgotten. the only question
for europe is: does it finally have the balls to emancipate and stand up against the bully?
or will it submit and become a collateral damage of it's downfall? in form of a nuclear
wasteland maybe?
I think that Nord stream II is a turning point. If Germany caves in here, there's little
hope to get rid of the leash for it and the whole of Europe.
If it stands tall, europe might become a buffer instead of a frontline. knowing and seeing
our politicians, i'd say it doesn't look good.
"... Nord Stream 2 is of vital importance to Germany's energy security. The German public was rather hostile to President Trump and Biden's victory was seen with relief. But when it sees how Biden pursues the same policies, and with a similar tone, it will turn on him ..."
"... Since Washington is now in conflict with a goodly part of the public it sees that creating foreign policy crises and enemies as an excellent course of action to shore up support. Americans are always ready to react against enemies no matter how slender the proof of the wrongdoing ascribed to the enemy. There is never a penalty to pay for lying in the US if you are in the mainstream media or in the political arena. Since the CIA controls much of the European media and their ruling class it would take quite a lot for Europeans to drop their status as vassal states. ..."
Nord Stream 2 is of vital importance to Germany's energy security. The German public
was rather hostile to President Trump and Biden's victory was seen with relief. But when it
sees how Biden pursues the same policies, and with a similar tone, it will turn on him .
<-- b
However "hostile", Germany contributed to uni-lateral Trumpian sanctions, and so far,
North Stream 2 is the only beacon of independence. Take Ukraine: Germany and France form half
of Normandy Four, and provided name for Steinmeier formula. Ukraine resolutely resists
proceeding with any obligations under that formula. Germany is silent on that and support
annual extensions of sanctions, not to mention sanctions on Syria, Venezuela and whatever EU
sanctions.
Syria is an interesting example. It could be actually popular among German voters to
facilitate reconstruction in that country and return of the refugees to their homeland. Iran
and Russia are potentially good customers for German industry. Independence of German banks
and other companies from whimsical sanctions from USA would help too.
Seemingly, ingrained masochism is hard to overcome.
Thanks for posting Pepe's comments, some of which are in his current article I linked to
on the open thread. In my comment related to Pepe's article I noted his excerpt of Chinese
academic Jisi and this specific part:
"the Americans are eager to deal with problems before they are ready to improve the
relationship."
That observation is consistent with that of an entity that only wants its orders obeyed
and seeks no relationship or friendship with any other entity since it sees itself as Top
Dog, and #1 in every way. As with the Nord Stream project, we see the Gangster mentality--Do
as I say or else!
Not only does the Emperor have no clothes or much of a working memory, he's got erectile
disfunction too that's well beyond the ability of Viagra to fix.
So here we have Blinken, Winken and Nod providing direction for failing empire
Blinken is obvious
Winken is that behind the scenes, wink, wink, nod, nod (there ain't no class structure here)
type VP and
Nod is the new normal as US President.
I am sure they will try to take America to new places, yet to be dreamt of....will the
brainwashed of the West follow?
About Germany and Nord Stream II.....To a degree that I am not sure of, Germany is like
Japan, a fully owned colony of empire....this may be the time that the Germany nut gets
cracked wide open....interesting times indeed.
Where are the details of Blinken telling China how to behave? I can hardly wait for the
next act of Blinken, Winken and Nod
"Why, after so many bad words towards it, would China help the U.S. with solving the North
Korea problem? It has zero incentive to do so."
This (as well as the Germany/NS2 thing) sounds like a rather naive view. Western headlines
are for western internal consumption. And what's happening behind the scene, what incentives
are offered and what threats are made in exchange for what specific actions, we simply don't
know.
I notice a lot of accusations that Washington is "stupid" but that's not true. You have to
understand how Washington works before you make such statements. The Deep State knows that it
can control the minds of most Americans by inventing "truths" without any need to prove
anything.
Since Washington is now in conflict with a goodly part of the public it sees that
creating foreign policy crises and enemies as an excellent course of action to shore up
support. Americans are always ready to react against enemies no matter how slender the proof
of the wrongdoing ascribed to the enemy. There is never a penalty to pay for lying in the US
if you are in the mainstream media or in the political arena. Since the CIA controls much of
the European media and their ruling class it would take quite a lot for Europeans to drop
their status as vassal states.
Remember, Washington can throw endless amounts of money around and fund everything from
terrorism, crime waves, sexual indiscretions a la Epstein (the CIA had it's own whorehouse
which my father pointed out to me decades ago--it was in Roslyn Virginia and it used underage
girls and boys to improve its soft-power).
So far, no one has paid a penalty for lying or corrupt practices in Washington if they
were "made" men or women (Trump never got that far).
As long as Europe, Japan and some other countries continue to be vassal states the US can
and will get away with anything. Nordstream 2 is the issue that may change all that. Once
Germany rebels the rest may follow.
germany breaking rank will be first big turn in nato. nordstream is a non negotiable issue
for germany. meanwhile the US is not agreement capable. on anything and the vaccine hoarding
is a big F U in EU to so called allies. all the pieces are set. just need time to let it all
play out. the global south woke to it before the slower europeans can see the world anew.
as for the US china alaska meeting, it does seem to me that the US administration and deep
state or whatever you want to call it are not coordinated or fully aligned with each other.
the timing of the US sanctions on hk officials seem designed to thwart any possible dialogue.
as if some elements are working to ensure the meeting resolves nothing.
the china global times calls this move the US stick that comes down before any negotiation
and says it's a continuation of trump era tactics. maybe. I see it more as designed to make
the meeting fail instead of designed to achieve anything such as extracting concessions from
china. not being agreement capable because it is sabotaged from within.
but at this pt in the crumbling empire it is perhaps foolish to analyze its tactics in
terms of means and ends. its only 'rationale' at this pt is to just keep doing what it's
doing. sanctions wars threats coercion and moral grandstanding. it only knows it is right and
there is nothing else besides.
About Vlora to be an Alternative to NS2. Just a Fake from Radio France International, paid
for by french gov. France is now full play in US hand. Macron want NS2 [and soon NS1..] to be
shut down.
Nord Stream 1 is 55 Md.M3/y
Nord Stream 2 too.
110Md.m3/year
The biggest ship to deliver US GNL in Europe is 260.000 m3. 1m3 GNL is 600m3 natural
gaz.
It's me or my computer? 3 ship per day? How many ship necessary? 60? 80?
Not an economy, a nightmare.
American capitalism was plunder and is now parasitism.
In order to get energy, Germany need Russia. Nord Stream is a direct tie in order to avoid
"reliable" intermediate like Ukraine or Poland.
In order to get everything under control US need [reliable intermediate] to cut the tie
between [oil/gas fields] from Middleeast or Russia and Germany, the sole country in Europe
with Great industrial/technical capacity.
"... In the Risk Alert below, the itemization of various forms of abuses, such as the many ways private equity firms parcel out interests in the businesses they buy among various funds and insiders to their, as opposed to investors' benefit, alone should give pause. And the lengthy discussion of these conflicts does suggest the SEC has learned something over the years. Experts who dealt with the agency in its early years of examining private equity firms found the examiners allergic to considering, much the less pursuing, complex abuses. ..."
"... Undermining legislative intent of new supervisory authority the SEC never embraced its new responsibilities to ride herd on private equity and hedge funds. ..."
"... The agency is operating in such a cozy manner with private equity firms that as one investor described it: It's like FBI sitting down with the Mafia to tell them each year, "Don't cross these lines because that's what we are focusing on." ..."
"... Advisers charged private fund clients for expenses that were not permitted by the relevant fund operating agreements, such as adviser-related expenses like salaries of adviser personnel, compliance, regulatory filings, and office expenses, thereby causing investors to overpay expenses ..."
"... Current SEC chairman Jay Clayton came from Sullivan & Cromwell, bringing with him Steven Peikin as co-head of enforcement. And the Clayton SEC looks to have accomplished the impressive task of being even weaker on enforcement than Mary Jo White. ..."
"... On the same side though, fraud is a criminal offence, and it's SEC's duty to prosecute. And I believe that a lot of what PE engage in would happily fall under fraud, if SEC really wanted. ..."
"... Crimogenic: Producing or tending to produce crime or criminality. An additional factor is that, in the main, the criminals do not take their money and leave the gaming tables but pour it back in and the crime metastasizes. AKA, Kleptocracy. ..."
"... You might add that the threat of consequences for these crimes makes the criminals extremely motivated to elect officials who will not prosecute them (e.g. Obama). They're not running for office, they're avoiding incarceration. ..."
"... Andrew Levitt, for instance, complained bitterly that Joe Lieberman would regularly threaten to cut the SEC's budget for allegedly being too aggressive about enforcement. Lieberman was the Senator from Hedgistan. ..."
"... More banana republic level grift. What happens when investors figure out they can't believe anything they are told? ..."
"... Can we come up with a better descriptor for "private equity"? I suggest "billionaire looters". ..."
"... Where is the SEC when Bain Capital (Romney) wipes out Toys-R-Us and Dianne Feinstein's husband Richard Blum wipes out Payless Shoes. They gain control of the companies, pile on massive debt and take the proceeds of the loan, and they know the company cannot service the loan and a BK is around the corner. ..."
"... Thousands lose their jobs. And this is legal? And we also lost Glass-Steagal and legalized stock buy-backs. The Elite are screwing the people. It's Socialism for the Rich, the Politicians and Govt Employees and Feudalism for the rest of us. ..."
We've embedded an SEC Risk Alert on private equity abuses at the end of this post. 1 What is remarkable about this
document is that it contains a far longer and more detailed list of private abuses than the SEC flagged in its initial round of examinations
of private equity firms in 2014 and 2015. Those examinations occurred in parallel with groundbreaking exposes by Gretchen Morgenson
at the New York Times and Mark Maremont in the Wall Street Journal.
At least some of the SEC enforcement actions in that era look
to have been triggered by the press effectively getting ahead of the SEC. And the SEC even admitted the misconduct was more common
at the most prominent firms.
Yet despite front-page articles on private equity abuses, the SEC engaged in wet noodle lashings. Its pattern was to file only
one major enforcement action over a particular abuse. Even then, the SEC went to some lengths to spread the filings out among the
biggest firms. That meant it was pointedly engaging in selective enforcement, punishing only "poster child" examples and letting
other firms who'd engaged in precisely the same abuses get off scot free.
The very fact of this Risk Alert is an admission of failure by the SEC. It indicates that the misconduct it highlighted five years
ago continues and if anything is even more pervasive than in the 2014-2015 era. It also confirms that its oft-stated premise then,
that the abuses it found then had somehow been made by firms with integrity that would of course clean up their acts, and that now-better-informed
investors would also be more vigilant and would crack down on misconduct, was laughably false.
In particular, the second section of the Risk Alert, on Fees and Expenses (starting on page 4) describes how fund managers are
charging inflated or unwarranted fees and expenses. In any other line of work, this would be called theft. Yet all the SEC is willing
to do is publish a Risk Alert, rather than impose fines as well as require disgorgements?
The SEC's Abject Failure
In the Risk Alert below, the itemization of various forms of abuses, such as the many ways private equity firms parcel out interests
in the businesses they buy among various funds and insiders to their, as opposed to investors' benefit, alone should give pause.
And the lengthy discussion of these conflicts does suggest the SEC has learned something over the years. Experts who dealt with the
agency in its early years of examining private equity firms found the examiners allergic to considering, much the less pursuing,
complex abuses.
Undermining legislative intent of new supervisory authority the SEC never embraced its new responsibilities to ride herd on
private equity and hedge funds.
The SEC has long maintained a division between the retail investors and so-called "accredited investors" who by virtue of having
higher net worths and investment portfolios, are treated by the agency as able to afford to lose more money. The justification is
that richer means more sophisticated. But as anyone who is a manager for a top sports professional or entertainer, that is often
not the case. And as we've seen, that goes double for public pension funds.
Starting with the era of Clinton appointee Arthur Levitt, the agency has taken the view that it is in the business of defending
presumed-to-be-hapless retail investors and has left "accredited investor" and most of all, institutional investors, on their own.
This was a policy decision by the agency when deregulation was venerated; there was no statutory basis for this change in priorities.
Congress tasked the SEC with supervising the fund management activities of private equity funds with over $150 million in assets
under management. All of their investors are accredited investors. In other words, Congress mandated the SEC to make sure these firms
complied with relevant laws as well as making adequate disclosures of what they were going to do with the money entrusted to them.
Saying one thing in the investor contracts and doing another is a vastly worse breach than misrepresentations in marketing materials,
yet the SEC acted as if slap-on-the-wrist-level enforcement was adequate.
We made fun when thirteen prominent public pension fund trustees wrote the SEC asking for them to force greater transparency of
private equity fees and costs. The agency's position effectively was "You are grownups. No one is holding a gun to your head to make
these investments. If you don't like the terms, walk away." They might have done better if they could have positioned their demand
as consistent with the new Dodd Frank oversight requirements.
Actively covering up for bad conduct . In 2014, the SEC started working at giving malfeasance a free pass. Specifically, the SEC
told private equity firms that they could continue their abuses if they 'fessed up in their annual disclosure filings, the so-called
Form ADV. The term of art is "enhanced disclosure". Since when are contracts like confession, that if you admit to a breach, all
is forgiven? Only in the topsy-turvy world of SEC enforcement.
The agency is operating in such a cozy manner with private equity firms that as one investor described it: It's like FBI sitting down with the Mafia to tell them each year, "Don't cross these lines because that's what we are focusing
on."
Specifically, as we indicated, the SEC was giving advanced warning of the issues it would focus on in its upcoming exams, in order
to give investment managers the time to get their stories together and purge files. And rather than view its periodic exams as being
designed to make sure private equity firms comply with the law and their representations, the agency views them as "cooperative"
exercises! Misconduct is assumed to be the result of misunderstanding and error, and not design.
It's pretty hard to see conduct like this, from the SEC's Risk Alert, as being an accident:
Advisers charged private fund clients for expenses that were not permitted by the relevant fund operating agreements, such
as adviser-related expenses like salaries of adviser personnel, compliance, regulatory filings, and office expenses, thereby causing
investors to overpay expenses
The staff observed private fund advisers that did not value client assets in accordance with their valuation processes or in
accordance with disclosures to clients (such as that the assets would be valued in accordance with GAAP). In some cases, the staff
observed that this failure to value a private fund's holdings in accordance with the disclosed valuation process led to overcharging
management fees and carried interest because such fees were based on inappropriately overvalued holdings .
Advisers failed to apply or calculate management fee offsets in accordance with disclosures and therefore caused investors
to overpay management fees.
We're highlighting this skimming simply because it is easier for laypeople to understand than some of the other types of cheating
the SEC described. Even so, industry insiders and investors complained that the description of the misconduct in this Risk Alert
was too general to give them enough of a roadmap to look for it at particular funds.
Ignoring how investors continue to be fleeced . The SEC's list includes every abuse it sanctioned or mentioned in the 2014 to
2015 period, including undisclosed termination of monitoring fees, failure to disclose that investors were paying for "senior advisers/operating
partners," fraudulent charges, overcharging for services provided by affiliated companies, plus lots of types of bad-faith conduct
on fund restructurings and allocations of fees and expenses on transactions allocated across funds.
The SEC assumed institutional investors would insist on better conduct once they were informed that they'd been had. In reality,
not only did private equity investors fail to demand better, they accepted new fund agreements that described the sort of objectionable
behavior they'd been engaging in. Remember, the big requirement in SEC land is disclosure. So if a fund manager says he might do
Bad Things and then proceeds accordingly, the investor can't complain about not having been warned.
Moreover, the SEC's very long list of bad acts says the industry is continuing to misbehave even after it has defined deviancy
down via more permissive limited partnership agreements!
Why This Risk Alert Now?
Keep in mind what a Risk Alert is and isn't. The best way to conceptualize it is as a press release from the SEC's Office of Compliance
Inspections and Examinations. It does not have any legal or regulatory force. Risk Alerts are not even considered to be SEC official
views. They are strictly the product of OCIE staff.
On the first page of this Risk Alert, the OCIE blandly states that:
This Risk Alert is intended to assist private fund advisers in reviewing and enhancing their compliance programs, and also
to provide investors with information concerning private fund adviser deficiencies.
Cutely, footnotes point out that not everyone examined got a deficiency letter (!!!), that the SEC has taken enforcement actions
on "many" of the abuses described in the Risk Alert, yet "OCIE continues to observe some of these practices during examinations."
Several of our contacts who met in person with the SEC to discuss private equity grifting back in 2014-2015 pressed the agency
to issue a Risk Alert as a way of underscoring the seriousness of the issues it was unearthing. The staffers demurred then.
In fairness, the SEC may have regarded a Risk Alert as having the potential to undermine its not-completed enforcement actions.
But why not publish one afterwards, particularly since the intent then had clearly been to single out prominent examples of particular
types of misconduct, rather than tackle it systematically? 2
So why is the OCIE stepping out a bit now? The most likely reason is as an effort to compensate for the lack of enforcement actions.
Recall that all the OCIE can do is refer a case to the Enforcement Division; it's their call as to whether or not to take it up.
The SEC looks to have institutionalized the practice of borrowing lawyers from prominent firms. Mary Jo White of Debevoise brought
Andrew Ceresney with her from Debeviose to be her head of enforcement. Both returned to Debevoise.
Current SEC chairman Jay Clayton came from Sullivan & Cromwell, bringing with him Steven Peikin as co-head of enforcement. And
the Clayton SEC looks to have accomplished the impressive task of being even weaker on enforcement than Mary Jo White. Clayton made
clear his focus was on "mom and pop" investors, meaning he chose to overlook much more consequential abuses by private equity firms
and hedgies. The New York Times determined that the average amount of SEC fines against corporate perps fell markedly in 2018 compared
to the final 20 months of the Obama Administration. The SEC since then levied $1 billion fine against the Woodbridge Group of Companies
and its one-time owner for running a Ponzi scheme that fleeced over 8,400, so that would bring the average penalty up a bit. But
it still confirms that Clayton is concerned about small fry, and not deeper but just as pickable pockets.
David Sirota argues that the OCIE
was out to embarrass Clayton and sabotage what Sirota depicted as an SEC initiative to let retail investors invest in private equity.
Sirota appears to have missed that that horse has left the barn and is in the next county, and the SEC had squat to do with it.
The overwhelming majority of retail funds is not in discretionary accounts but in retirement accounts, overwhelmingly 401(k)s.
And it is the Department of Labor, which regulates ERISA plans, and not the SEC, that decides what those go and no go zones are.
The DoL has already green-lighted allowing large swathes of 401(k) funds to include private equity holdings.
From a post earlier this month :
Until now, regulations have kept private equity out of the retail market by prohibiting managers from accepting capital from
individuals who lack significant net worth.
Moreover, even though Sirota pointed out that Clayton had spoken out in favor of allowing retail investors more access to private
equity investments, the proposed regulation on the definition of accredited investors in fact not only does not lower income or net
worth requirements (save for allowing spouses to combine their holdings) it in fact solicited comments on the idea of raising the
limits.
From a K&L Gates write up :
Previously, the Concept Release requested comment on whether the SEC should revise the current individual income ($200,000)
and net worth ($1,000,000) thresholds. In the Proposing Release, the SEC further considered these thresholds, noting that the
figures have not been adjusted since 1982. The SEC concluded that it does not believe modifications to the thresholds are necessary
at this time, but it has requested comments on whether the final should instead make a one-time increase to the thresholds in
the account for inflation, or whether the final rule should reflect a figure that is indexed to inflation on a going-forward basis.
It is not clear how many people would be picked up by the proposed change, which was being fleshed out, that of letting some presumed
sophisticated but not rich individuals, like junior hedge fund professionals and holders of securities licenses, be treated as accredited
investors. In other words, despite Clayton's talk about wanting ordinary investors to have more access to private equity funds, the
agency's proposed rule change falls short of that.
Moreover, if the OCIE staff had wanted to undermine even the limited liberalization of the definition of accredited investor so
as to stymie more private equity investment, the time to do so would have been immediately before or while the comments period was
open. It ended March 16 .
So again, why now? One possibility is that the timing is purely a coincidence. For instance, the SEC staffers might have been
waiting until Covid-19 news overload died down a bit so their work might get a hearing (and Covid-19 remote work complications may
also have delayed its release).
The second possibility is that OCIE is indeed very frustrated with the enforcement chief Peikin's inaction on private equity.
The fact that Peikin's boss and protector Clayton has made himself a lame duck meant a salvo against Peikin was now a much lower
risk. If any readers have better insight into the internal workings of the SEC these days, please pipe up.
______
1 Formally, as you can see, this Risk Alert addresses both private equity and hedge fund misconduct, but on reading
the details, the citing of both types of funds reflects the degree to which hedge funds have been engaging in the buying and selling
of stakes in private companies. For instance, Chatham Asset Management, which has become notorious through its ownership of American
Media, which in turn owns the National Enquirer, calls itself a hedge fund. Moreover, when the SEC started examining both private
equity and hedge funds under new authority granted by Dodd Frank, it described the sort of misconduct described in this Risk Alert
as coming out of exams of private equity firms, and its limited round of enforcement actions then were against brand name private
equity firms like KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, and TPG. Thus for convenience as well as historical reasons, we refer only to private
equity firms as perps.
2 Media stories at the time, including some of our posts, provided substantial evidence that particular abuses, such
as undisclosed termination of monitoring fees and failure to disclose that "senior advisers" presented as general partner "team members"
were in fact consultants being separately billed to fund investments, were common practices. Yet the SEC chose to lodge only marquee
enforcement actions against one prominent firm for each abuse, as if token enforcement would serve as an adequate deterrent. The
message was the reverse, that the overwhelming majority of the abuses were able to keep their ill-gotten gains and not even face
public embarrassment.
TBH, in the view of Calpers ignoring its advisors, I do have a little understanding of the SEC's point "you're grown ups" (the
worse problem is that the advisors who leach themselves to the various accredited investors are often not worth the money.
On the same side though, fraud is a criminal offence, and it's SEC's duty to prosecute. And I believe that a lot of what PE
engage in would happily fall under fraud, if SEC really wanted.
Yes, the SEC conveniently claims a conflicted authority – 1. to regulate compliance but without an "enforcement authority",
and 2. report egregious behavior to their "enforcement authority". So the SEC is less than a permissive nanny. Sort of like "access"
to enforcement authority. Sounds like health care to me.
No, this is false. The SEC has an examination division and an enforcement division. The SEC can and does take enforcement actions
that result in fines and disgorgements, see the $1 billion fine mentioned in the post. So the exam division can recommend enforcement
to the enforcement division. That does not mean it will get done. Some enforcement actions originate from within the enforcement
division, like insider trading cases, and the SEC long has had a tendency to prioritize insider trading cases.
The SEC cannot prosecute. It has to refer cases that it thinks are criminal to the DoJ and try to get them to saddle up.
Crimogenic: Producing or tending to produce crime or criminality. An additional factor is that, in the main, the criminals
do not take their money and leave the gaming tables but pour it back in and the crime metastasizes.
AKA, Kleptocracy.
Thus in 2008 and thereafter the criminal damage required 2-3 trillion, now 7-10 trillion.
Any economic expert who does not recognize crime as the number one problem in the criminogenic US economy I disregard. Why
read all that analysis when, at the end of the run, it all just boils down to bailing out the criminals and trying to reset the
criminogenic system?
You might add that the threat of consequences for these crimes makes the criminals extremely motivated to elect officials who
will not prosecute them (e.g. Obama). They're not running for office, they're avoiding incarceration.
The SEC has been captured for years now. It was not that long ago that SEC Examination chief Andrew Bowden made a grovelling
speech to these players and even asked them to give his son a job which was so wrong-
But there is no point in reforming the SEC as it was the politicians, at the beck and call of these players, that de-fanged
the SEC – and it was a bipartisan effort! So it becomes a chicken-or-the-egg problem in the matter of reform. Who do you reform
first?
Can't leave this comment without mentioning something about a private equity company. One of the two major internal airlines
in Oz went broke due to the virus and a private equity buyer has been found to buy it. A union rep said that they will be good
for jobs and that they are a good company. Their name? Bain Capital!
We broke the story about Andrew Bowden! Give credit where credit is due!!!! Even though Taibbi points to us in his first line,
linking to Rolling Stone says to those who don't bother clicking through that it was their story.
Of course I remember that story. I was going to mention it but thought to let people see it in virtually the opening line of
that story where he gives you credit. More of a jolt of recognition seeing it rather than being told about it first.
Of the three branches of government which ones are not captured by big business? If two out of three were to captured then
does it matter what the third does?
Is the executive working for the common good or for the interests of big business?
Is the legislature working for the common good or for the interests of big business?
Is the judiciary working for the common good or for the interests of big business?
In my opinion too much power has been centralised, too much of the productivity gains of the past 40 years have been monetised
and therefore made possible to hoard and centralise. SEC should (in my opinion) try to enforce more but without more support then I do not believe (it is my opinion, nothing more
and nothing less) that they can accomplish much.
The SEC is a mysterious agency which (?) must fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury because it is a monetary regulatory
agency in the business of regulating securities and exchanges. But it has no authority to do much of anything. The Treasury itself
falls under the executive administration but as we have recently seen, Mnuchin himself managed to get a nice skim for his banking
pals from the money Congress legislated.
That's because Congress doesn't know how to effectuate a damn thing – they legislate
stuff that morphs before our very eyes and goes to the grifters without a hitch. So why don't we demand that consumer protection
be made into hard law with no wiggle room; that since investing is complex in this world of embedded funds and glossy prospectuses,
we the consumer should not have to wade through all the nonsense to make decisions – that everything be on the table. And if PE
can't manage to do that and still steal its billions then PE should be declared to be flat-out illegal.
Please stop spreading disinformation. This is the second time on this post. The SEC has nada to do with the Treasury. It is an independent regulatory agency. It however is the only financial regulator that does not keep what it kills (its own fees and fines) but is instead subject
to Congressional appropriations.
Andrew Levitt, for instance, complained bitterly that Joe Lieberman would regularly threaten
to cut the SEC's budget for allegedly being too aggressive about enforcement. Lieberman was the Senator from Hedgistan.
It should be noted that out here in the countryside of northern Michigan that embezzlement (a winter sport here while the men
are out ice fishing), theft and fraud are still considered punishable felonies. Perhaps that is simply a quaint holdover from
a bygone time. Dudley set the tone for the C of C with his Green Book on bank deregulation. One of the subsequent heads of C of
C was reported as seeing his position as "being the spiritual resource for banks". If bank regulation is treated in a farcical
fashion why should be the SEC be any different?
I was shocked to just now learn that ERISA/the Dept of Labor is in regulatory control of allowing pension funds to buy PE fund
of funds and "balanced PE funds". What VERBIAGE. Are "PE Fund of Balanced Funds" an actual category? And what distinguishes them
from good old straightforward Index Funds? And also too – what is happening before our very glazed-over eyes is that PE is high
grading not just the stock market but the US Treasury itself. Ordinary investors should be buying US Treasuries directly and retirement
funds should too. It will be a big bite but if it knocks PE out of business it would be worth it. PE is in the business of cooking
its books, ravaging struggling corporations, and boldly privatizing the goddamned Treasury. WTF?
What about the wanton destruction of the purchased companies? If this solely about the harm done to the poor investors?
If so, that is seriously wrong.
If, you know, the neoliberal "because markets" is the ruling paradigm then of course there is no harm done. The questions then
become: is "because markets" a sensible paradigm? What is it a sensible paradigm of? Is "because markets" even sensible for the
long term?
an aside: farewell, Olympus camera. A sad day. Farewell, OM-1 and OM-2. Film photography is really not replicated by digital
photography but the larger market has gone to digital. Speed and cost vs quality. Because markets. Now the vulture swoop.
Where is the SEC when Bain Capital (Romney) wipes out Toys-R-Us and Dianne Feinstein's husband Richard Blum wipes out Payless
Shoes. They gain control of the companies, pile on massive debt and take the proceeds of the loan, and they know the company cannot
service the loan and a BK is around the corner.
Thousands lose their jobs. And this is legal? And we also lost Glass-Steagal and
legalized stock buy-backs. The Elite are screwing the people. It's Socialism for the Rich, the Politicians and Govt Employees and
Feudalism for the rest of us.
"... Kane, who coined the term "zombie bank" and who famously raised early alarms about American savings and loans, analyzed European banks and how regulators, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, backstop them. ..."
"... We are only interested observers of the arm wrestling between the various EU countries over the costs of bank rescues, state expenditures, and such. But we do think there is a clear lesson from the long history of how governments have dealt with bank failures . [If] the European Union needs to step in to save banks, there is no reason why they have to do it for free best practice in banking rescues is to save banks, but not bankers. That is, prevent the system from melting down with all the many years of broad economic losses that would bring, but force out those responsible and make sure the public gets paid back for rescuing the financial system. ..."
"... In 2019, another question, alas, is also piercing. In country after country, Social Democratic center-left parties have shrunk, in many instances almost to nothingness. In Germany the SPD gives every sign of following the French Socialist Party into oblivion. Would a government coalition in which the SPD holds the Finance Ministry even consider anything but guaranteeing the public a huge piece of any upside if they rescue two failing institutions? ..."
Running in the background, though, was a new, darker theme: That the post-2008 reforms had gone too far in restricting policymakers'
discretion in crises. The trio most responsible for making the post-Lehman bailout revolution -- Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner,
and Henry Paulson --
expressed their
misgivings in a joint op-ed :
But in its post-crisis reforms, Congress also took away some of the most powerful tools used by the FDIC, the Fed and the Treasury
the FDIC can no longer issue blanket guarantees of bank debt as it did in the crisis, the Fed's emergency lending powers have
been constrained, and the Treasury would not be able to repeat its guarantee of the money market funds.
These powers were critical in stopping the 2008 panic The paradox of any financial crisis is that the policies necessary to
stop it are always politically unpopular. But if that unpopularity delays or prevents a strong response, the costs to the economy
become greater.
We need to make sure that future generations of financial firefighters have the emergency powers they need to prevent the next
fire from becoming a conflagration.
Sotto voce fears of this sort go back to the earliest reform discussions. But the question surfaced dramatically in Timothy Geithner's
2016 Per Jacobsson Lecture, " Are We Safer? The Case for Strengthening
the Bagehot Arsenal ." More recently, the Group of Thirty
has advanced similar suggestions -- not too surprisingly, since Geithner was co-project manager of the report, along with Guillermo
Ortiz, the former Governor of the Mexican Central Bank, who introduced the former Treasury Secretary at the Per Jacobson lecture.
Aside from the financial collapse itself, probably nothing has so shaken public confidence in democratic institutions as the wave
of bailouts in the aftermath of the collapse. The redistribution of wealth and opportunity that the bailouts wrought surely helped
fuel the populist surges that have swept over Europe and the United States in the last decade. The spectacle of policymakers rubber
stamping literally unlimited sums for financial institutions while preaching the importance of austerity for everyone else has been
unbearable to millions of people.
Especially in money-driven political systems, affording policymakers unlimited discretion also plainly courts serious risks. Put
simply, too big to fail banks enjoy a uniquely splendid situation of "heads I win, tails you lose" when they take risks. Scholars
whose research INET has supported, notably
Edward Kane , have shown how the certainty of government bailouts advantages large financial institutions, directly affecting
prices of their bonds and stocks.
For these reasons INET convened a panel at a G20 preparatory meeting in Berlin on "
Moral Hazard Issues in Extended Financial Safety Nets ."
The Power Point presentations of the three panelists are presented in the order in which they gave them, since the latter ones sometimes
comment on Edward Kane
's analysis of the European banks. Kane, who coined the term "zombie bank" and who famously raised early alarms about American
savings and loans, analyzed European banks and how regulators, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, backstop them.
Peter Bofinger
, Professor of International and Monetary Economics at the University of Würzburg and an outgoing member of the German Economic Council,
followed with a discussion of how the system has changed since 2008.
Helene Schuberth
, Head of the Foreign Research Division of the Austrian National Bank, analyzed changes in the global financial governance system
since the collapse.
The panel took place as public discussion of a proposed merger between two giant German banks, the Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank,
reached fever pitch. The panelists explored issues directly relevant to such fusions, without necessarily agreeing among themselves
or with anyone at INET.
But the point Robert Johnson, INET's President, and I
made some years back , amid an earlier wave of talk about using public money to bail out European banks, remains on target:
We are only interested observers of the arm wrestling between the various EU countries over the costs of bank rescues,
state expenditures, and such. But we do think there is a clear lesson from the long history of how governments have dealt with
bank failures . [If] the European Union needs to step in to save banks, there is no reason why they have to do it for free best
practice in banking rescues is to save banks, but not bankers. That is, prevent the system from melting down with all the many
years of broad economic losses that would bring, but force out those responsible and make sure the public gets paid back for rescuing
the financial system.
The simplest way to do that is to have the state take equity in the banks it rescues and write down the equity of bank shareholders
in proportion. This can be done in several ways -- direct equity as a condition for bailout, requiring warrants that can be exercised
later, etc. The key points are for the state to take over the banks, get the bad loans rapidly out of those and into a "bad bank,"
and hold the junk for a decent interval so the rest of the market does not crater. When the banks come back to profitability,
you can cash in the warrants and sell the stock if you don't like state ownership. That way the public gets its money back .at
times states have even made a profit.
In 2019, another question, alas, is also piercing. In country after country, Social Democratic center-left parties have shrunk,
in many instances almost to nothingness. In Germany the SPD gives every sign of following the French Socialist Party into oblivion.
Would a government coalition in which the SPD holds the Finance Ministry even consider anything but guaranteeing the public a huge
piece of any upside if they rescue two failing institutions?
There needs to be an asset tax on/break up of the megas. End the hyper-agglomeration of deposits at the tail end. Not holding
my breath though. (see NY state congressional delegation)
To be generous, tax starts at $300 billion. Even then it affects only a dozen or so US banks. But would be enough to clamp
down on the hyper-scale of the largest US/world banks. The world would be better off with lot more mid-sized regional players.
Anyone who mentions Timmy Geithner without spitting did not pay attention during the Obama reign of terror. He and Obama crowed
about the Making Home Affordable Act, implying that it would save all homeowners in mortgage trouble, but conveniently neglected
to mention that less than 100 banks had signed up. The thousands of non-signatories simply continued to foreclose.
Not to mention Eric Holder's intentional non-prosecution of banksters. For these and many other reasons, especially his "Islamic
State is only the JV team" crack, Obama was one of our worst presidents.
Fergusons graph on DBK's default probabilities coincides with the ECB's ending its asset purchase programme and entering the
"reinvestment phase of the asset purchase programme". https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/index.en.html
The worst of the euro zombie banks appear to be getting tense and nervous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKpzCCuHDVY
Maybe that is why Jerome Powell did his volte-face last month on gradually raising interest rates. Note that the Fed also reduced
its automatic asset roll-off. I'm curious if the other euro-zombies in the "peers" return on equity chart are are experiencing
volatility also.
Apparently the worst fate you can suffer as long as you don't go Madoff is Fuld. According to Wikipedia his company manages
a hundred million which must be humiliating. It's not as humiliating as locking the guy up in prison would be by a very long stretch.
Greenspan famously lamented that there isn't anything the regulators can really do except make empty threats. This is dishonest.
The regulations are not carved in stone like the ten commandments. In China they execute incorrigible financiers all the time.
Greenspan was never willing to counter any problem that might irritate powerful financial constituencies. For example, during
the internet stock bubble of the late 1990's, Greenspan decried the "irrational exuberance" of the stock market. The Greenspan
Fed could have raised the margin requirement for stocks to buttress this view, but did not. As I remembered reading, Greenspan
was in poor financial shape when he got his Fed job.
His subsequent performance at the Fed apparently left him a wealthy man. Real regulation by Greenspan may have adversely affected
his wealth. It may explain why Alan Greenspan would much rather let a financial bubble grow until it pops and then "fix it".
Everybody forgets (or at least does not mention) that Greenspan was a member of the Class of '43, the (mostly Canadian) earliest
members of the Objectivist Cult with guru Ayn Rand. Expecting him to act rationally is foolish. It may happen accidentally (we
do not know why he chose to let the economy expand unhindered in 1999), but you cannot count on it. In a world with information
asymmetry expecting markets to be concerned about reputation is ridiculous. To expect them to police themselves for long term
benefit is even more ridiculous.
I think Finance is currently about 13% of the S&P 500, down from the peak of about 18% or so in 2007. I think we will have
a healthy economy and improved political climate when Finance is about 8-10% of the S&P 500 which is about where I think finance
plays a healthy, but not overwhelming rentier role in the economy.
"... She soldiered through her painful stomach ailments and secretly tape-recorded 46 hours of conversations between New York Fed officials and Goldman Sachs. After being fired for refusing to soften her examination opinion on Goldman Sachs, Segarra released the tapes to ProPublica and the radio program This American Life and the story went viral from there... ..."
"... In a nutshell, the whoring works like this. There are huge financial incentives to go along, get along, and keep your mouth shut about fraud. The financial incentives encompass both the salary, pension and benefits at the New York Fed as well as the high-paying job waiting for you at a Wall Street bank or Wall Street law firm if you show you are a team player . ..."
"But the impotence one feels today -- an impotence we should never consider permanent -- does not excuse one from remaining true
to oneself, nor does it excuse capitulation to the enemy, what ever mask he may wear. Not the one facing us across the frontier or
the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers' enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us
its slaves. The worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus, and to trample underfoot, in its
service, all human values in ourselves and in others."
Simone Weil
"And in some ways, it creates this false illusion that there are people out there looking out for the interest of taxpayers, the
checks and balances that are built into the system are operational, when in fact they're not. And what you're going to see and what
we are seeing is it'll be a breakdown of those governmental institutions. And you'll see governments that continue to have policies
that feed the interests of -- and I don't want to get clichéd, but the one percent or the .1 percent -- to the detriment of everyone
else...
If TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the
same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car... I think it's inevitable. I mean, I don't think how you can look at all
the incentives that were in place going up to 2008 and see that in many ways they've only gotten worse and come to any other conclusion."
Neil Barofsky
"Written by Carmen Segarra, the petite lawyer turned bank examiner turned whistleblower turned one-woman swat team, the 340-page
tome takes the reader along on her gut-wrenching workdays for an entire seven months inside one of the most powerful and corrupted
watchdogs of the powerful and corrupted players on Wall Street – the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The days were literally gut-wrenching. Segarra reports that after months of being alternately gas-lighted and bullied at
the New York Fed to whip her into the ranks of the corrupted, she had to go to a gastroenterologist and learned her stomach lining
was gone.
She soldiered through her painful stomach ailments and secretly tape-recorded 46 hours of conversations between New York Fed officials
and Goldman Sachs. After being fired for refusing to soften her examination opinion on Goldman Sachs,
Segarra released the tapes to ProPublica and
the radio program This American Life and the story went viral from there...
In a nutshell, the whoring works like this. There are huge financial incentives to go along, get along, and keep your mouth shut
about fraud. The financial incentives encompass both the salary, pension and benefits at the New York Fed as well as the high-paying
job waiting for you at a Wall Street bank or Wall Street law firm if you show you are a team player .
If the Democratic leadership of the House Financial Services Committee is smart, it will reopen the Senate's aborted inquiry into
the New York Fed's labyrinthine conflicts of interest in supervising Wall Street and make removing that supervisory role a core component
of the Democrat's 2020 platform. Senator Bernie Sanders' platform can certainly be expected to continue the accurate battle cry that
'the business model of Wall Street is fraud.'"
One of the favourite tropes of the transparent cabal who have seized power in the US and
other captive nations is that the solution to the Palestine/Israel problem is "the path to
peace is through direct negotiations.'
This proposition requires the occupied bartering away their land and amending their
borders, always for the benefit of the illegal occupier. These 'negotiations' are expressly
forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. Every functioning government in the world knows
this.
The alien invaders are under an obligation to simply get out. Every 'agreement' is null
and void.
The New Zealand government and the NZ superannuation fund has recently decided to divest
their investments in Israeli banks citing international law, the Geneva Conventions and
reputation damage as key factors.
It is sheer hypocrisy for the usual suspects to talk about human rights, rules based
international law, democracy and our values, while advocating the opposite policies in the
middle east.
Is it possible they actually believe their own propaganda and their own lies through
Bernays like repartition?
The Afghans (including the Taliban) do not want the US to leave their country. The flow of
US$ into the country (including the flow of heroin$) is what the Afghans have lived on for
many decades. Its not like the Afghans don't have control of their own country. They have
complete control of all the parts of the country that they want to control. They are
perfectly happy to allow Americans to control small parts of the country as long as the $$$
keep flowing into the whole country.
The US power elite may have figured out that just like every other power that has ever
tried to occupy Afghanistan that it is a black hole that sucks the life out of the power
trying to conq
@76 Tom
Interesting! Been too busy for reviewing the new military appointees until I read your post.
It looks like this is a last ditch attempt by Trump to get troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria...
"withdrawing troops from Afghanistan may well be exactly what TPTB want."
Posted by: jinn | Nov 12 2020 23:34 utc | 81
Well, they have had, what 19 years years to do that and now that President Trump makes
another push for it, all hell breaks loose from the forever war team, you know that team of
Democrats and RINO's who are now vying for a spot on Biden's team of psychopaths for war. The
we came, we saw and aren't leaving team.
"withdrawing troops from Afghanistan may well be exactly what TPTB want."
Anything is possible, but given the pushback that is taking place (quietly of course, lest
the masses get awoken) that is seriously doubtful.
Afghanistan can be likened to one of the central squares on a chessboard...control of
central squares is vital as it reduces the mobility of your opponent and lays ground for
offensive action.
China has a border with Afghanistan, as does Iran...were Afghanistan to free itself from
USA occupation, it would make a great conduit for the BRI.
That is without getting into Afghanistan's role in opium trade and the related black
budget, nor its wealth in rare minerals. One might say for the Hegemon to remain the Hegemon
it needs to control Afghanistan.
The problem for the hegemon is Afghanistan is expensive to hold on to...and this is
without Russia, Iran or China putting any effort in to chase US troops out via arming and
training proxies...that could be done quickly, and I am guessing the groundwork is already in
place.
Well, they have had, what 19 years years to do that
_________________________________________
Well sure but you need to remember the story of why we were there in the first place.
They can't just dump all the BS that they have been feeding us for nineteen years and say
"never mind" like Roseanne Roseannadanna.
As for the warmongers who support attacking Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc that was done to send
a message to any country that does not want to knuckle under to the $$$ hegemony and thinks
about trying to escape it.
That messaging does not apply to the Afghan war. That war sends the exact opposite
message.
Most Americans consider Kissinger a war criminal too, and informed Americans know that
Zbignue Brzenski has lost all credibility. He was a cold war era Anti-Russian. He has said
little if anything relevant since the collapse of the USSR.
Informed Americans would prefer a doplomatic relationship with their neighbors south of
the border. It would be much more economically and environmentally sustainable to have a
cooperative agreement with Venezuela, rather than the KXL advocates north of the border, that
Biden thankfully banned. It may be the only thing tbat he ends up doing correctly. I hope
not. I did not vote for him, Trump, or anyone else. Biden, Blinken, and Austin speak about
wanting to go back to the JCPOA and START, but whether they are willing to give up their
policy errors of force through sanctions, and falsely blaming Iran for the attack on the
Irbil Iraq airport will probably determine whether they can do this successfully or not.
Everyone is sick of the bullshit from the American government, including American citizens!
The government does what they Globzi investors demand from them. They really do not give a
damn about anyone else. Everyone is just a means to an end to them, and unkess someone is
exceptionally wealthy, they are an irrelevant pain in the ass to the government, unless they
are willing to sell out their own interest in order to elevate the corrupt government.
That's true. As a barometer of establishment thinking, Foreign Affairs is indeed
useful. I would just make a distinction of using it to understand establishment thinking
versus using it as a source for good policy, which is evidently questionable if its editors
still think Robert Kagan has anything useful to propose.
"Our calls for vigilance and boldness were heard in the US Congress, which pressed on
with measures designed to stop this dangerous, divisive project. We call on US
President Joe Biden to use all means at his disposal to prevent the project from
completion", the pair added.
They think they have a voice in the US Congress? Should apply for Statehood then.
The ministers suggested that if completed, the project will add to Russia's drive "to try
to convince the Ukrainian public that the West doesn't care about its own principles, and
ultimately, about the security and prosperity of Ukraine".
But wasn't the critique against socialism from the Soviet space that it was "utopian",
i.e. that it put its "principles" (ideology) before economic fundamentals?
Poland, Ukraine Urge Biden to Do His Best 'to Put an End' to Nord Stream 2 Project
vk @ 109. Congress of the USA to interfere with the completion of Russian-German Nord stream
II project because the LNG cartel in USA governed Texas, Lousisana , Oregon want to require
every man women and child in Europe to pay monopoly prices for LNG. As I see it failure of
Nord Stream II will be extremely dangerous to the survival of the solar and wind renewable
energy efforts; its a do it or die situation for dominate energy is the goal of the LNG
cartel...
Don't be spooked by those words. Do you know where the words sustainable and inclusive
come from? Tycoons didn't think them up. They're just parroting them to try and twist their
meaning. Those words are from the Addis Ababa consensus. Tycoons give lip service to those
words because if they don't, no one will give them the time of day.
AA is the consensus of the ECOSOC bloc, treaty parties of the ICESCR, 171 of them, the
overwhelming majority of the world. ECOSOC reports to the UNGA, the most participative and
least controllable UN organ. US UN delegates don't even dare mention the AA outcome –
they fixate on the Monterrey Consensus, two documents ago.
Inclusive means, don't let usurers like the IMF get you on the debt hook and immiserize
your people. Sustainable means no pillage of national wealth or resources and no imposition
of externalities (like Chevron did to Ecuador, for instance.) You will see that the outcome
document subordinates everthing the tycoons or the US want to human rights and rule of law.
Economic rights too. The outcome curbs US "Western" corporatist development by pulling WTO
and IMF under the authority of G-192 organizations like UNCTAD and ILO.
It's hard for people in US satellites to interpret this stuff because the underlying
intitiatives of the G-192 (that is, the world) are hidden from you and buried in US
propaganda. Xi is quoting his Five Principles, four of which are straight out of the UN
Charter. China has ratified the ICESCR. So China is not communist. China is not capitalist.
China is a member of the ECOSOC bloc. People in the US or its satellites have no idea what
that is, but it's vastly bigger than the Third International was. It's development based on
human rights. Tycoons and the US hate that shit but they can't stop it.
A couple of things that would go a long way to correct the goddamn stupidity running
rampant in this country are.
Correcting the following horrendous actions: The SCOTUS has passed down egregious
decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of
representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing
stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and
power total influence in elections.
And-
Making it absolutely impossible for anyone to amass more than 100 million dollars extreme
wealth concentrates too much power.
Thanks for the FYI. That's not at all an unexpected assault on a method for the people to
redress grievances, not that it was actually acted upon since the Executive has a very nasty
habit of not obeying the law.
I'm curious as to how Russia will regulate Western Big Tech platforms licensed to operate
within Russia if they violate the terms of the agreement outside its borders, as Twitter did
recently to a Russian group outside of Russia. Perhaps Russia will make an extraterritorial
law such that if Twitter, for example, unjustifiably freezes an account as it does daily it
will lose its rights to operate within Russia. As for the individual user, IMO its dumb to
sign onto a service that you know practices censorship and shares private data with
governments and other entities--either you value your own privacy or it will be stolen from
you. With luck, quantum computing and its encryption algorithms will destroy all efforts at
data collection; but those days are a ways off and will likely first become available on
Chinese devices which the West will ban.
I wonder what our Aussie barflies have to say about this :
"Facebook to ban Australian users from reading and sharing news in response to
government's Big Tech bill."
That's right! FB Australia is going to ban its users from discussing a legislative
proposal by the Australian government that would regulate Aussie FB.
If that's how they choose to operate, more nations will ban them. And again I ask why have
anything to do with an organization that censors basic content.
Google promised the same about two weeks ago as the Murdoch controlled Oz legislature is
pushing to ensure that if big tech carries links to articles in news sites such as Murdoch's
Daily Telegraph or Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald they, big tech, will have to kick back a
proportion of the advertising revenue they make.
Despite it being murdochian the claim has some merit, but no monopoly is going to acquiesce
to such a small population as Australia's so Google, FB, Twitter etc, will just ban all news
links to Oz sources.
The Oz conservatives are likely to do their usual "damn the voters, full speed ahead" as
long as nothing else crops up to make this too on the nose.
This if it happens will be a win win for the Oz population as they will revert back to
sourcing their own news and sharing it with others free of big tech's control &
censorship. It will be an interesting time, although the monopolies will be pushing shock
horror tales about it outside Oz. There is no chance of it happening in amerika as BidenCorp
is a big tech puppet, but it could happen eventually as the fishwraps still retain
considerable power over the amerikan political structure.
Thanks for your reply! I recall one of the Cold War talking points was that the Free Flow
of Information was Vital to democratic governance and was a major reason why the USSR and
Warsaw Pact was so backwards as they stifled all information flows through censorship and
other means. VoA Trumpeted that constantly. Such hubris is going to encourage the world's
nations to come together to control what are clearly becoming outlaw organizations.
The IMF system was designed to impoverish debtors. The purpose of the IMF was to make other
countries so poor and dependent on the United States so they could never be militarily
independent. In the discussion of the British loan for instance, in the 1930s the discussion in
the London Economic Conference was, "Yes, we're bankrupting Europe, but if we give Europe
enough money to avoid austerity, they're just going to spend the money on the military." That
was said by the Americans in the State Department and the White House again and again,
especially by Raymond Moley who was basically in charge of President Roosevelt's foreign policy
towards Europe.
The question is: how do you create an international financial system designed to promote
prosperity, not austerity? The Bretton Woods is for austerity for everybody except the United
States, which will have a free ride forever. The question that I'm involved with in the work
I'm doing in China and with other countries is how to create a system based on prosperity
instead of austerity, with mutual support between creditors and debtors, without the kind of
financial antagonism that has been built in to the international financial system ever since
World War I. Financial reform involves tax reform as well: how do we end up taxing economic
rent instead of letting the rentiers take over society. That is what classical economics
is all about: how do we revive it?
Oscar Brisset
Final question: these austerity and anti-labor policies which the IMF imposes on countries
of the global South seem to be well known practices from before the IMF was created, from what
you've discussed. Did the IMF invent anything new? In addition, in the 19th century, was
predatory lending something common, or was direct invasion always the go-to method for
subjugating a territory?
Prof Hudson
The 19th century was really the golden age of industrial capitalism. Countries wanted to
invest to make a profit. They didn't want to invest in dismantling an existing industry,
because there wasn't much industry to dismantle. They wanted to make profit by creating
industry. There was a lot of investment in infrastructure, and it almost always lost money. For
instance, there was recently a criticism of China saying, "Doesn't China know that the Panama
Canal went bankrupt again and again, and that all the investments in canals and the railroads
all went broke again and again?" Of course China knows that. The idea is that you make
investment not to make a profit on basic large infrastructure. The 19th century was basically
inter-state lending, inter-governmental lending, public sector lending. That's where the money
was made. The late 20th century was one of financialization, dismantling the industry that was
already in place, not lending to create industry to make a profit. It's asset-stripping, not
profit-seeking
Speaking about rich families who own the world. There is one unique feature of german
oligarchy, they don't change. More than half of the hundred richest families now have already
been rich before ww1. They made the crazy history of last century possible. Please just go
for a second in the perspective they have.
It's part & parcel here especially from DUP types who sometimes appear to be living in
a fantasy world – Shinners not so much but I imagine that SF dissidents have similar
extreme positions & all of this comes from some intelligent & professional people not
just the malleable mobs. Meanwhile there is a turf war for the gangster versions of both UVF
& UDA hitting the streets in Belfast.
I recall a few years back reading an account from a British Army general who was familiar
with both Northern Ireland & the former Yugoslavia before they blew up, who in both
instances was shocked by how people who had for the most part lived happily side by side
within a relatively short space of time became sworn enemies. All of that had a religious
background with the latter including ethnicity, but to him both sides in both cases spiraled
down through negative reactions into extremes, becoming in the end each others sworn
enemies.
Politics & Class have I believe caused the same fractures & after all the
successful & presumably intelligent PMC also have their deplorable others that are
largely a construction based on generalisations & stereotypes, while sadly peace &
reconciliation efforts as far as I can tell always appear to arrive as an epilogue to a very
bad book.
Yugoslavia definitely didn't live happily side by side. Its tensions were hidden under
Tito, but existed before (cf WW2 Croats vs Serbs, as most visible example), and blew up
after, to a great extent because they were so supressed before w/o any reasonable outlet. It
might have given a semblance of "happines", but it wasn't really there.
I was only in Yugoslavia once for about a week in 1982, and you could see what a mess it
was in the making. I'm used to Europeans drinking, but Belgrade made em' look like
teetotalers. Add in age old tensions and kaboom!
One of the biggest hyperinflationary episodes came out of their civil war, only to be
eclipsed in the numbers game by Zimbabwe after the turn of the century.
I was going through Yugoslavia by train in 1981 and the one thing that struck me looking
out the windows was flags. You had Yugoslavian flags everywhere you looked to the point that
it was almost a fetish. It was only years later that I wondered if the point of those flags
was to encourage the different groups to think of themselves as Yugoslavians first and
foremost.
> to a great extent because they were so supressed before w/o any reasonable
outlet.
But this seems to excuse the fighting? If everybody was "suppressed" then why did they
kick sideways, rather than up? As I think I said once before, my friend from Serbia would say
"I'd be on "my" side of the street and "they" would be shooting at me, and then I'd cross the
street and "my" people would be shooting at me".
He, like so many nowadays, came to the US not because this was some beacon of hope but
because where he lived, a place he loved for many reasons, was that messed up.
Reading Wikipedia I come across this tiresome sentence: "The Croat quest for independence
led to large Serb communities within Croatia rebelling and trying to secede from the Croat
republic. Serbs in Croatia would not accept a status of a national minority in a sovereign
Croatia, since they would be demoted from the status of a constituent nation of the entirety
of Yugoslavia."
Croats? Serbs? Like they are fundamentally different species? It's as bad as the
Reconstruction South, but per my example above people didn't even have different colored
skin, heck they were physically indistinguishable. They just wanted something they themselves
couldn't even describe without foaming at the mouth.
To be considered above somebody else by birth was what it really was.
Oh, and another head-banging quote: "the "Croatian Spring" protest in the 1970s was backed
by large numbers of Croats who claimed that Yugoslavia remained a Serb hegemony and demanded
that Serbia's powers be reduced .Tito, whose home republic was Croatia,"
An iron-fisted dictator runs the country, he is from Croatia, yet the country is
considered by Croatians to be "Serb hegemony". Ok whatever, hey it does make more sense than
following a normal-height dark-haired dark-eyed man because he says that tall blond-haired
blue eyed people are superior. And that was a short-by-American-standards drive away
We can give the globe a spin and find the same idiocy in Asia, where "they all look alike"
to western eyes but oh boy they slaughter each other just as regularly as we do.
Ok I'm done ranting. What a plague on the planet this species is.
Kicking sideways (or downwards) is always easier than kicking upwards, especially if
people were doing it for years.
Otherwise, you're just accentuating my point – and I agree with you. It was
incredible watching people in pub who were getting on very well until one of them asked where
the other was from, and that has changed the whole atmosphere.
My cousin from Prague came to America in the late 90's to live on a genuine ranch for a
spell and go on a long roadtrip in search of
So he gets pulled over for speeding in a red state and gives the officer his Czech drivers
license, and he told me the officer went into a harangue over all the ethnic cleansing that
was going on in his country, and how sorry he was about it, and let him off.
Cousin was torn between telling the copper, nah that's a few countries over, but went for
the victim card instead.
Hah, do you know the Western press brain-melt induced by having Slovakia and Slovenia
(which, moreover have very similar flags..) in the same World Cup (soccer) 2022 qualification
group?
Croats? Serbs? Like they are fundamentally different species?
Not different species, but different religions; Roman and Orthodox Catholicism,
respectively. Think German-speaking Europe during the Thirty Years War.
The irony of course is that, in 1992, Croats for the most part didn't go to mass, Serbs
did go to Liturgy, and Bosniak Muslims thought beer went well with their pork chops.
Think of it not as a religious war, but a re-hash of WWII.
Diana Johnstones "Fools Crusade" goes into the destabilization efforts made by various EU
and Nato entities to precipitate the break up. It's where the Clintons beta tested the nation
breaking tools Bush/Cheney began deploying around the world.
Karl Von Hapsburg and the Pope were both involved in prying the Catholic portions loose
from the Yugoslav federation and bringing them back into the Mont Pelerin orbit of the former
Habsburg empire.
The Orthodox regions have been left to the Russians with black markets to everyone's
benefit and the Bosnians given the standard settler/colonial treatment of designated
"races."
Vlade – perhaps I should not have used the word happily but basically neighbours
were not killing each other as was also mainly the case in NI, although there were tensions
gradually building up in tandem with the Civil Rights movement based on the MLK. model.
I don't know what the tipping point was in the Balkans, but in NI it was the treatment
received by the marchers & the likes of the Bogside at the hands of the B specials &
RUC in Derry which gradually spread elsewhere in mass battles between mobs from both sides
& the above armed cops. All of this capped off in 72 by the Provos most successful
recruiting campaign courtesy of the Parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, while about that
time around 10,000 Catholic refugees crossed into the Republic.
If the General thought that people in NI lived happily side by side before the Troubles,
then he was sorely misinformed. Tensions were always very strong, although not just religious
ones. In Dublin growing up I had neighbours who were Belfast protestants but had been driving
out of Belfast because their grandfather was involved in a shipyard trade union and that was
sufficient for him to have been labeled as a communist and Taig lover.
Yes happily was the wrong word but in the North outside of the cities there was mixing
& occasionally mixed marriages.
You are very correct in relation to the troubles in the shipyards, which I read a few
books about in prep for a statue. Funny thing is that during my 2 stints at the Titanic
studios for GoT I was informed by the top man that many of the tradesmen were ex
paramilitaries from both sides who managed to work well together for a decade, but in
separate teams. That was also tjhe case during the yearly Wraps where they all took full
advantage of the free bars but besides a few scuffles, there was never any real trouble.
A lot of the work would have been carried out in the original paint hall.
You have lost me there Vlade ( If you were indeed commenting on my post ) as I don't know
the book, but you have reminded me of one very violent incident on location in Spain between
2 Catholics in a bar. It was due to one of them being a member of another group of savages
that plagued Belfast as the other 2 wound down.
They were called the Hoodies who were part of the huge crime wave that hit Belfast as a
consequence of the Troubles. It was cleaned up in Catholic areas over about 7 years under the
command of Bobby Storey.
There is no singular "opposition" for Washington to support -- no unified alternative
ideology, least of all one palatable to the West, to replace the current Russian state and
institutions.
Jailed Kremlin foe Navalny being used by West to destabilise Russia: Putin ally
By
Reuters
Staff
3 MIN READ
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny is being used by the West to try to destabilise Russia, a
prominent hardliner and ally of President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday, saying he must be held to account for
repeatedly breaking the law.
Slideshow
(
2 images )
Navalny was remanded in custody for 30 days last week after returning from Germany where he had been recovering from a
nerve agent poisoning. He could face years in jail for parole violations and other legal cases he calls trumped up.
Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Security Council, called for Navalny to face the full force of the law in comments
that offered a glimpse into the mood inside Russia's security establishment after tens of thousands of Navalny's
supporters protested against his jailing on Saturday.
"He (Navalny), this figure, has repeatedly (and) grossly broken Russian legislation, engaging in fraud concerning large
amounts (of money). And as a citizen of Russia he must bear responsibility for his illegal activity in line with the
law," Patrushev told the Argumenty i Fakty media outlet.
"The West needs this figure to destabilise the situation in Russia, for social upheaval, strikes and new Maidans,"
Patrushev said, in a reference to the 2014 revolution in Ukraine that ousted a Moscow-backed president.
When asked about Patrushev's comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was up to a court to make further
decisions in the opposition politician's case and that it was not a matter for the Kremlin.
Police detained more than 3,700 people on Saturday as protesters called on the Kremlin to release Navalny. The Kremlin
said the protests were illegal.
Peskov on Tuesday said there could be no dialogue with illegal protesters, accusing them of behaving aggressively and of
using what he called unprecedented violence against the police.
He said incidences of police violence against protesters, some of which were captured on video, were far fewer and being
investigated.
In a sign that Russian authorities may crack down hard after the protests, the Kommersant newspaper on Tuesday cited
unnamed security sources as saying they may open a criminal investigation that would treat the demonstrations as "mass
unrest".
The West has called for Navalny's release, but the European Union has said it will refrain from fresh sanctions on
Russian individuals if Moscow releases Navalny after 30 days.
News outlets and campaign groups that get cash from overseas could be prevented from
spending money in Russia under proposals put forward by an influential Moscow think tank.
RT obtained a copy of the proposal, addressed to Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev on
Wednesday. Developed by Anton Orlov, director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary
Politics, the draft regulations would effectively ban groups that are registered as "foreign
agents" from making financial payments to individuals.
Orlov claims in his statement that one such organization has been demonstrated to have
"organized unauthorized street political actions in Russian cities." He added: "At
the same time, representatives of the organization disseminated information on social networks
and in the media that they were ready to pay the fines of citizens received as a result of
committing offenses at these events."
It is unclear how this would affect the ability of these groups to pay their staff in
Russia.
A number of organizations have been labeled as foreign agents under government rules,
because they receive significant proportions of their funding from abroad, predominately from
Western governments. Among them are US state-run media outlets Voice of America and RFE/RL, as
well as the opposition-leaning Moscow-based Levada Center.
In March last year, President Vladimir Putin defended the law, comparing it to equivalent
measures in the US and arguing that it "exists simply to protect Russia from external
meddling in its politics."
"Nobody's rights are being infringed on here whatsoever. There is nothing that runs
counter to international practice," he added.
One of the country's most senior parliamentarians, Senator Andrey Klimov, told Rossiya-1
news channel on Sunday that the street protests organized in support of jailed opposition
figure Alexey Navalny last weekend had been orchestrated from outside the country. "The
Senatorial Commission has reason to believe that all these activities are clearly traced to the
actions of foreign states, and it is all happening with the assistance of foreign
specialists," he told the broadcaster.
A number of organizations have been labeled as foreign agents under government rules,
because they receive significant proportions of their funding from abroad, predominately from
Western governments. Among them are US state-run media outlets Voice of America and RFE/RL, as
well as the opposition-leaning Moscow-based Levada Center.
In March last year, President Vladimir Putin defended the law, comparing it to equivalent
measures in the US and arguing that it "exists simply to protect Russia from external
meddling in its politics."
"Nobody's rights are being infringed on here whatsoever. There is nothing that runs
counter to international practice," he added.
One of the country's most senior parliamentarians, Senator Andrey Klimov, told Rossiya-1
news channel on Sunday that the street protests organized in support of jailed opposition
figure Alexey Navalny last weekend had been orchestrated from outside the country. "The
Senatorial Commission has reason to believe that all these activities are clearly traced to the
actions of foreign states, and it is all happening with the assistance of foreign
specialists," he told the broadcaster.
Dachaguy 3 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 09:57 AM
America used their weaponized dollar to fund mercenaries in Syria and we all saw the result
of that. Russia has a duty to prevent that type of attack against Russia. America's Achilles'
Heel is the US dollar, so cutting off its use by foreign agents to fund nefarious activities
is a good place to start.
Count_Cash 3 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 10:44 AM
Not enough - its time to send the diplomatic note to western countries that Russia considers
itself under attack by Western powers through an info war. Then it should close all foreign
media and campaign groups over night. It cannot be the case that enemy spying posts and
combatants are allowed on Russian soil during conflict!
Incisive and grim. As Mr. Putin observed, Presidents come and go but the policy stays the
same. But wait! I think there's more
WRT Iran. Iran recently announced that their sales of oil had increased substantially,
without, of course identifying how much or with whom. If they are doing these transactions in
national currencies, there's nothing other than piracy that the US can do, making the US more
dependent on our vassals to carry our water here. But
In other news, the EU has decided to stop supporting Guido. If some of the OAS vassals get
the idea that they, too, can stand on at least their two knees, maybe Mr. Maduro can get a
bit more of a break. The US is sure to be wroth.
PACE decided to pass a non-binding resolution of more sanctions against Russia for the
Navalny fiasco while Frau Merkel (and her likely successor) remains clear that Nord Stream II
must be finished. The German FM pointed out that they could face serious court battles since
the Pipeline consortium which includes other EU countries has all the permits they
require.
The results are in aaaaannnnnddd – thanx to Covid, for the first time in history
China had more Direct Foreign Investment (DFI) than the US. The US better hope that doesn't
keep up ..
Now Trump has shafted DR Congo because the money was well appreciated by Dan Gertler as
documented by Dershowitz.– "Letting Dan Gertler off the hook sends a message to the world's
most corrupt businesspeople that the U.S. will let them walk free after a bit of
lobbying,"-NYTimes
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's most pervasive foreign policy initiatives have involved Israel, encouraging the Jewish state's attacks on Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian targets with impunity, killing thousands of civilians on his watch. Trump has given Israel everything it could possibly ask for, with no consideration for what the U.S. interests might actually be. The only thing he did not do for the Jewish state was to attack and destroy Iran, and even there, reports suggest that he sought to do just that in the waning days of his administration but was talked out of it by his cabinet. ..."
"... But even given all that, Trump the panderer clearly wanted to give one last gift to Israel, and he saved it for his last day in office, when he issued more than 140 pardons and commutations. Though other presidents have issued controversial pardons, no other head of state has so abused the clemency authority to benefit not only friends and acquaintances but also celebrity defendants including rappers, some advocated by the likes of the Kardashians, and also those promoted by monied interests. Most of the pardons went to cronies and to supplicants who were willing to pay in cash or in kind to be set free. It was suggested that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner was engaged in the selection process and money was often a key element. Some might describe that as corruption. ..."
"... Elliott Broidy, former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, had no less than five Rabbis vouching for him. Last year Broidy had pleaded guilty to acting as an "unregistered foreign agent," part of a larger investigation into the Malaysian "1MDB Scandal" in which Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $700 million dollars from his country's state-run 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Broidy worked on behalf of Razak and was offered $75 million if he could get the U.S. Justice Department to drop its own investigation into the scandal. ..."
"... Another clemency beneficiary who exploited his Jewish links was Philip Esformes, a former nursing home executive who executed one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after being released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes celebrated his daughter's wedding in a lavish party held at his multi-million dollar Florida home. He benefited from a lobbying campaign by the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch Aleph Institute, a group advised by the ubiquitous former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The movement reportedly has connections to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. ..."
"... Another person pardoned by Trump was Sholam Weiss, a Hasidic businessman from New York who was sentenced to more than 800 years in prison in 2000 for racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering connected to a huge fraud scheme that stole $125 million from the National Heritage Life Insurance Company, leading to its bankruptcy. He fled the country but was subsequently arrested in Austria and extradited to the United States. Weiss had reportedly received the endorsement of from Dershowitz, who also recently has been involved in the Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell espionage case. ..."
"... Trump gave a full pardon to Aviem Sella, a seventy-five year old former Israeli Air Force officer, who was indicted in the U.S. in 1987 for espionage in relation to the Jonathan Pollard spy case. Sella fled to Israel days before Pollard was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. and the Israeli government refused to extradite him. Sella, at the time doing a degree course at New York University, was Pollard's initial contact. He had started working part-time for the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s and received some of the classified top-secret documents provided by Pollard in exchange for money and jewelry. ..."
One keeps hearing that former President Donald Trump will be judged well by the history
books because he was the only American head of state in recent memory who did not start any new
wars. Well, the claim is itself questionable as Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, managed to
avoid entering into any new armed conflict, and Trump can hardly be described as a president
who eschewed throwing his weight around, both literally and figuratively. He attacked Syria on
two occasions based on fabricated intelligence, assassinated an Iranian general, withdrew from
several arms and proliferation agreements, and has been waging economic warfare against Iran,
Syria, Venezuela and Iraq. He has sanctioned individuals and organizations in both China and
Russia and has declared Iranian government components and Yemeni Houthi rebels to be
terrorists. He has occupied Syria's oil producing region to "protect it from terrorists" and
has generally exerted "maximum pressure" against his "enemies" in the Middle East.
So no, Donald Trump is no antiwar activist. But Trump's most pervasive foreign policy
initiatives have involved Israel, encouraging the Jewish state's attacks on Palestinian,
Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian targets with impunity, killing thousands of civilians on his
watch. Trump has given Israel everything it could possibly ask for, with no consideration for
what the U.S. interests might actually be. The only thing he did not do for the Jewish state
was to attack and destroy Iran, and even there, reports suggest that he sought to do just that
in the waning days of his administration but was talked out of it by his cabinet.
Trump's pander to Israel started out with withdrawing from the nuclear monitoring agreement
with Iran, followed by his shutting down the Palestinian offices in the United States, halting
U.S. contributions for Palestinian humanitarian relief, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, giving a green light for Israel
to do whatever it wishes on the formerly Palestinian West Bank, and, finally permitting paroled
former Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to go "home" to Israel where he received a hero's welcome.
Trump, to be sure, was aided in his disloyalty to his own country by former bankruptcy lawyer
Ambassador David Friedman in place in Israel, an ardent Zionist and a cheerleader for whatever
atrocities Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to commit. Couple that with a Congress
that gives billions of dollars to Israel annually while bleating that the Jewish state has a
"right to defend itself" and a media that self-censors all the human rights violations and war
crimes that Netanyahu unleashes, and you have a perfect love fest for Israel expressed daily
throughout the United States.
But even given all that, Trump the panderer clearly wanted to give one last gift to Israel,
and he saved it for his last day in office, when he issued more than 140 pardons and
commutations. Though other presidents have issued controversial pardons, no other head of state
has so abused the clemency authority to benefit not only friends and acquaintances but also
celebrity defendants including rappers, some advocated by the likes of the Kardashians, and
also those promoted by monied interests. Most of the pardons went to cronies and to supplicants
who were willing to pay in cash or in kind to be set free. It was suggested that Trump
son-in-law Jared Kushner was engaged in the selection process and money was often a key
element. Some might describe that as corruption.
Those of us in the actual antiwar plus anti-surveillance-state movement had been hoping that
Trump would actually do something good at no cost to himself, pardoning whistleblowers Edward
Snowden, John Kiriakou, Reality Winner, and Chelsea Manning as well as journalist Julian
Assange. Kiriakou
has reported that when he petitioned for a pardon through one of Trump lawyer Rudi
Giuliani's aides, he was told that such an arrangement would cost $2 million.
Bribes for pardons aside, it would have cost Trump nothing to pardon the whistleblowers and
it would be a vindication of those who had put themselves at risk to attack the machinations of
the Deep State, which Trump had blamed for the coordinated attacks against himself. This was
his relatively cost-free chance to get revenge. Admittedly,
there is speculation that Senator Mitch McConnell may have warned Trump against pardoning
Julian Assange in particular, threatening to come up with enough GOP votes to convict him in
his upcoming impeachment trial if he were to do so. Be that as it may, not a single
whistleblower was pardoned though there was room on the ship for plenty of heinous white collar
criminals. Former Dr. Salomon Melgen, for example, had his sentence commuted. Melgen, a close
friend of the seriously corrupt Senator from New Jersey Robert Menendez got into
trouble in 2009 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) discovered that
he had overbilled Medicare for $8.9 million for a drug called Lucentis. Two years later
Melgen's business was hit with a $11 million lien from
the IRS and four years after that he was charged and convicted over more than 76 counts of
health care fraud and making false statements.
Some of those pardoned had Jewish organizations going to bat for them. Elliott Broidy,
former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, had
no less than five Rabbis vouching for him. Last year Broidy had pleaded guilty to acting as
an "unregistered foreign agent," part of a larger investigation into the Malaysian "1MDB
Scandal" in which Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $700 million dollars from his
country's state-run 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Broidy worked on behalf of Razak and
was offered $75 million if he could get the U.S. Justice Department to drop its own
investigation into the scandal.
Another clemency
beneficiary who exploited his Jewish links was Philip Esformes, a former nursing home
executive who executed one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after
being released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes celebrated his
daughter's wedding in a lavish party held at his multi-million dollar Florida home. He
benefited from a lobbying campaign by the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch Aleph Institute, a group
advised by the ubiquitous former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The movement reportedly has
connections to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Another person pardoned by Trump was Sholam Weiss, a Hasidic businessman from New York who
was
sentenced to more than 800 years in prison in 2000 for racketeering, wire fraud and money
laundering connected to a huge fraud scheme that stole $125 million from the National Heritage
Life Insurance Company, leading to its bankruptcy. He fled the country but was subsequently
arrested in Austria and extradited to the United States. Weiss had reportedly received the
endorsement of from Dershowitz, who also recently has been involved in the Jeffrey
Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell espionage case.
And, of course, there was also the Israel factor. For no plausible reason whatsoever and
contrary to actual American interests, Trump
gave a full pardon to Aviem Sella, a seventy-five year old former Israeli Air Force
officer, who was indicted in the U.S. in 1987 for espionage in relation to the Jonathan Pollard
spy case. Sella fled to Israel days before Pollard was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in
Washington D.C. and the Israeli government refused to extradite him. Sella, at the time doing a
degree course at New York University, was Pollard's initial contact. He had started working
part-time for the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s and received some of the
classified top-secret documents provided by Pollard in exchange for money and jewelry.
Sella had passed on the Pollard contact to Mossad's agent handler Rafi Eitan, who continued
to "run" Pollard until he was arrested. Sella's indictment was essentially meaningless theater,
as is generally true of nearly all Israeli spy cases in the U.S., as Tel Aviv refused to
extradite him to the United States and the Justice Department made no attempt to arrest him
when he was traveling outside Israel. Trump's pardon for Sella as a favor to Netanyahu sends
yet another signal that Israel can spy against the U.S. with impunity. The request to Trump for
clemency came from the Israeli government itself and was reportedly endorsed by Netanyahu,
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, the United States Ambassador to Israel
David Friedman, and Miriam Adelson. According to the White House statement on the pardon, "The
state of Israel has issued what a full and unequivocal apology, and has requested the pardon in
order to close this unfortunate chapter in U.S.-Israel relations."
Was it a gift or merely a pander? Note particularly the inclusion of David Friedman, who as
U.S. Ambassador to Israel is supposed to defend the interests of the United States but never
does so. Once upon a time it was considered a potential conflict of interest to send a Jewish
Ambassador to Israel. Now it seems to be a requirement and the Ambassador is apparently
supposed to be an advocate for Israel as part of his or her mission. Friedman will no doubt be
replaced by a Democratic version to deliver more of the same. And then there is Miriam Adelson.
Good old Sheldon is hardly cold on the ground and his wife has taken up the mantle of
manipulating players in Washington on behalf of the Jewish state.
Money talks and so the drama in Washington continues to play out. Trump manages to make
himself look even worse with his last round of pardons and commutations on his ultimate day in
office. No one who deserved clemency got it and a lot of well-connected rogues who were willing
to fork over money in exchange for mercy benefited. Business as usual delivered by the
so-called Leader of the Free World.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email isinform@cnionline.org
While I whole heartily agree with Dr Giraldi, I strongly believe that Trump was a hostage
of wealthy Jews and Zionists. It is most likely that he has committed misdemeanour while he
was involved (friendship) with Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine who operated an elitist paedophilia
criminal enterprise. The criminal enterprise was to advance the interests of Israel and Jews.
It was used as a honey trap. Remember, Trump was under constant threat by wealthy Jews and by
right-wing Zionists like Senators Mitch McConnell, Robert Menendez, etc. Trump was not a
smart president. He committed heinous crimes on behalf of Israel and wealthy Jews.
All Shabbos goys. Our nation is truly Zionist occupied territory. It has been for a long
time, but under trump it became overt, and will continue to be under Biden.
Our whole reality, in a sense, has become a Talmudic dialectic. The rabbinate's
mouthpiece, our media, disseminates the two sides of that demonic dialectic. The education
system and academia train and mold Shabbos goys and Noahides. We work for them and they see
us as beasts of burden.
Our citizenry likes the slavery they have been placed in. They are content.
So, the Populist is a shill for Israel and Qanon is probably a psy-op run from Tel Aviv. I
wanted to believe there was hope for the USA. I really did. Now we have Biden "I am a
Zionist" with an Israeli cabinet. Was there really election fraud? Will we ever know?
What's next?
I pity those people, probably otherwise good folks, that were conned by this character.
Was a blanket pardon for all Jews and BLACKS just not possible? I'm confident Alan Dershowitz
could have worked through the complex legalities of such a "comprehensive" pardon.
What are a few yid pardons when, unbelievably, Americans routinely mutilate the sex organs
of their male offspring at birth to demonstrate total fealty to the vile Cock Cutter Cult
that rules them ..a practice so bizarre even an equatorial pygmy would laugh at the
practitioners. Of course, the practitioners claim hygienic as well as spiritual benefits look
ma, no dick cheese!
Trump is a crypto Jew. Well at least all his grandkids are ..real Jews. So is Hillary's
grandkid. So corrupted on both side. What's new? Nothing. The only thing remarkable is that
red necks still believe in Trump, hence the white race is doomed.
Agree with most of the article, but calling Jimmy Carter a recent president is more than
just a bit of a stretch.
Carter exited office 40 years ago. The current median age in the US is about 38.4
(2019).
So in the lifetime of a very large portion of Americans there has not been a president that
hasn't started a new war.
Frankly, I don't see why presidents should have the power to pardon. It has been abused so
much that perhaps it's time to strip presidents of that power, or at least there should be an
appeals process or some sort of oversight when that abuse becomes so egregious. Aside from
all the financial criminals, he pardoned actual war criminals, men who murdered innocent
civilians in Iraq. Pardons weren't meant for this.
Of course, leave it to Trump to take it to new levels of corruption as well as abuse. If
John Kyriakou's allegation of Trump's directly selling pardons is true, that should be a
first.
Carter kickstarted funding the Taliban 6 months before the Russians intervened.
I'm nor surprised by Trump's graft, but the whole system of making laws in Congress
includes bribery so nothing new here to see.
Aside from being a bad manager, he is no strategist it seems. Not pardoning Assange means
the GOP are going to vote not to impeach you? How gullible is he? He is getting impeached
whatever he does, he could jump on a literal sword and they'd still impeach him because they
are so offended by the prols.
The sight of Dersh rubbing his hands in the pic is nearly enough to induce this commenter
to say good riddance despite the obviously stolen election and the incoming disaster. I got
the Apolitical Blues.
It would not have mattered whether Donald Trump had pardoned any whistleblowers.
As we can see, the Harris administration is dismantling as much of his legacy as they can,
as fast as they can.
The parts that offend, that is.
It only matters if the CIA pardon Snowden or Assange, else they will forever be looking
over their shoulders, wondering when something will be slipped into their tea, or over their
doorknob..
@Z-man ing
back.
Therefore: stop bad-speak. Stop unauthorized thinking. For the love of God: eradicate
anti-Semitism!
Has Israeli dominance of Zio-Washington and US 'news' ever been greater? Nah. And it may
even be growing. OK, Trump blew the whistle on 'fake news'. But that teaser was pretty much
far as it went.
For all his boldness, Trump realized that–when it came to Israel and the deep
state– he met is match. Time to retreat.
Meanwhile, Israel and Zionist America have basically merged. In the dark of night, no
less.
This article is a full on demolition of the idea that Trumpstein is any sort of patriot. I
can not imagine any patriotic figure in all of human history doing a tenth of what this
shabas goy has done for another country – and one so universally despised as Israel
– and not only getting away with it, but still being praised in certain circles for
standing up for his "motherland". Bonkers.
Go back to the preposterously optimistic article and comments under "A Pardoning Time of
Year," December 29, 2020.
Will his supporters who thought that Mr. Trump would do right, even if only on his way out
the door, now admit that they were duped?
A few, maybe. But there will still be plenty like them for the next Most Important
Election Ever, their dissent channeled into naive, participatory assent to more
Red+Blue governance from Washington.
Amerimutts are either kikes or kike slaves. There is no other places on earth (except
semitic hell, of course), where "huwhites" cut children's foreskin against their will, as
good "Christians".
Disgusting nation of heretics, quadroons, subhumans, kike lovers and yids.
No surprise here, coming from "the best president Israel ever had". Expect more of the
same from the new administration of Israeli stooges. I was hopeful the orange bastard would
pardon Snowden and Assange, oh well.
Pedo Joe is wasting no time showing Jews & Israel he can pander and grovel to Israel
and Jew Inc better than Zion Don.
Look at 10 of his high-level Cabinet appointments..ALL Jews. If they had been all Muslims
or all Chinese, it would've hit the fan and by now, most would have dropped out from that
spot.
But since their Jews, well look the other way you Silly Goyim.
I thought Diversity was our strength?
All 10 of Biden's High Profile Appointees Are Jews
Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State
David Cohen, CIA Deputy Director
Merrick Garland, Attorney General
Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence
Ronald Klain, Chief of Staff
Eric Lander, Office of Science and Technology Policy director
Rachel Levine, deputy health secretary
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security
Anne Neuberger, National Security Agency cybersecurity director
Idiocracy, the director's cut. Trump grabs himself by the pussy in a surprise ending!
Remember, the Phoenix cannot rise from the fire, it has to rise from the ashes. Only then
can the real MAGA begin. See if its true that Bismarck (allegedly) stated that " there is a
special providence for drunkards, fools and the United States of America".
It's pretty fascinating for anyone who knows what's happening to see Jews utterly destroy
and evacuate yet another great civilization by using the same corrupting forces and patterns
used in their clearly deliberate rotting out of Rome, the destruction of the Holy Roman
Empire, then Russia, and now the USA. It's like Jews are a kind of human parasitoid that will
always kill its host as part of its lifecycle after it has drained all energy and resources
from within.
Remember that movie Alien, there the larva like offspring attaches to inject its seed into
humans and then clearly affects the human's nervous system to make them kind of forget that
ever happened as they carry the parasitoid in them that develops and feeds on their body
until the day it bursts from their chest in the form of the beast we know as the alien.
As stated about our in the movie, something along the lines of "pure survival instinct
burned by the limitations of delusions of morality"; pretty much describes how Jews operate
and act, and how they keep infecting and then destroying the very societies and civilizations
they feed on until they burst from their victims' chest.
I wish China all the luck it needs to see this threat from this parasitoid and freed
themselves of it before it infiltrates and infests and feeds on their society out too. By all
indications it is already too late for them too and they just don't realize it yet. The
recent video of the Chinese academic bragging about the control of American officials would
indicate as much, judging by the section of the video that was totally ignored, about the
Jewish woman executive of an American bank who is thick as thieves with the Chinese communist
party who manipulated things for the Chinese in America.
Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, managed to avoid entering into any new armed
conflict
What about Iran. Carter must take responsibility for the mishandling of Iran by letting
the Shah into the US, and failing to withdraw the embassy when it became obvious Iranian
internal politics meant US diplomats were becoming targets.
He attacked Syria on two occasions based on fabricated intelligence.
Russian forces fought a whole war in Syria on a correct appreciation of what could be
gained for Russia.
Trump, to be sure, was aided in his disloyalty to his own country by
America has to come to the aid of its allies, right or wrong, otherwise it will have no
allies.
[J]ournalist Julian Assange
Assange didn't describe himself as simply such until after his legal troubles started.
As for Snowden he wasn't drafted but rather was sought the job. He knew it was was not in
a boy scout group, and the secrets he was swearing an oath to keep were not going to be about
thoroughly wholesome activities such as training guide dogs for the blind. No more than
someone who becomes a made member of the mafia could Snowden be shocked at what the
organization he was associated with was doing.
Business as usual delivered by the so-called Leader of the Free World.
He never claimed to be a global Santa for those who brought nothing to the table.
Trump is pathetic. Anyone still making excuses for him is a battered wife and a sycophant.
I hope they continue to humiliate him now that he's out of office, because it's exactly what
he deserves.
Trump, just like his Republican counterparts, are more despicable than shitlibs and the
radical left, because they lie and stab you in the back every single time. At least the
shitlibs and radical leftists don't pretend they don't absolutely hate us.
If bribe money was paid, how was it spread around, and what besides money can be extracted
in return? A "no" vote on inpeachment? Pardons to Mossad/Israeli connected cases in return
for their pressure on certain politicians on whom they have compromising photos, etc?
A pardon for Assange and Kiriakou takes the pressure off Biden to do so, and these are
Obama political persecutions. And Winner was arrested in what, June 2017, by the FBI for
leaking classified info feeding the feeble Russian election interference narrative? She
posted numerous anti-Trump diatribes.
Sure, they and Snowden deserve pardons, but now the Dems will face dissension, criticism,
and sniping within their own ranks on these matters.
Trump might as well be more corrupted than Joe Biden at this point.
I'm convinced the American deep state removes him because he's actually an Israeli agent
which would make the Zionist scene in USA look bad, like holy hell, is there any zionist jew
he doesn't suck off? That's disgusting.
The hierarchy that controls our government and moral/social values, in order, goes as
follows:
Yids
Nigs
Spics
Trump, loved with under-educated and redneck whites, was an all-out Shabbos goy, not to
mention he was greedy, egotistical/egoistical and a self-serving liar.
In many ways Trump has been like a Terminator sent by the Jewish Establishment to
completely derail, discredit and destroy the Patriot movement in America. Now any American
Patriot who is against the U.S. Establishment and says CNN is fake news is automatically
associated with Trump and deemed an enemy of America. Can you say Mission Accomplished? The
Jewish Snake must be patting itself on the back for its brilliant move to hurt the greatest
threat to it in a long time.
Unfortunately there are many people who still believe that Trump was a great President
sent by God to save America. It makes me sad to see so many people so clueless. I wish that
all those still supporting Trump will wake up and recognize as so many others have that the
man is nothing but a Snake who knows how to speak your language while totally betraying your
cause. How can you support a two faced man like this who has hurt your cause more than anyone
else possibly could?
EDIT TO ADD: Trump left office in disgrace just as was intended but the real disgrace is
not on Trump but on the American Patriot movement. Now the American Patriot movement is in a
far worse position than it was in 2016 before it accepted Trump as its leader. We were
greatly deceived but in 2020 there is no excuse for anyone to still be deceived about Trump.
He completely betrayed our cause and it was all by design. His entire purpose for becoming
POTUS was, outside of giving Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Israel (his true loyalty), to
turn our cause into something that the American public would perceive as ugly and to be
shunned when in reality our cause is very noble. We were played by Trump and his Jewish
backers but that is now in the past. Let us stop talking about this man once and for all. He
is nothing but a distraction away from what it is important to us. I consider anyone still
supporting Trump at this point or in the future to be an enemy. http://www.chuckmaultsby.net/id55.html
Providing mucho fertilizer for excellent articles like this which expose the hideous and
disgusting perfidy of the Zionist sewer and its catamites is only worth of the Chrumpster and
his time as Netanyahu's orifice.
@Ron G , just
get me into the WH.
Which will happen, we'll have a power-mad prez that has never won any primaries doing
Israel's blood work.
THERE'S A WAR GOING ON OVER KAMALA HARRIS'S WIKIPEDIA PAGE, WITH UNFLATTERING
ELEMENTS VANISHING
A line about Harris traveling to Israel and the West Bank in November 2017, where she
met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was removed altogether.
My comment a few days ago on transgenerational hate got a lot of negative feed back. You
are correct though, boomers and church goers worship the yids, despite what Jesus said about
them and later Martin Luther.
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just
boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the
time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our
citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." – Admiral Thomas Moorer, head of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, interview, 24 Aug. 1983
Now that "Zion Don" appears to be out of the way, we can get back to encouraging illegals,
giving them their rights, setting our sights on the another Hitler in Syria, globalizing
what's left of the industrial base, getting trannies more judgeships, queering history, and
on and on cuz all dem ideas are homegrown and strictly non-kosher.
I thought the pardons were great. Who knew there were so many criminal Jews who have been
actually convicted? Its almost like the Jewish stereotypes are really true. Does that mean no
one can be anti Semitic? Also the way black rappers get killed off, supply and demand
dictates jailed ones need to be free. Very Reaganesque.
Sarcasm aside I think Jews tended to hate Trump because in sucking up to them, The Donald
wound up revealing many ugly truths. Outside of Trump's energy and environmental policies,
its a good riddance from me. Unfortunately the looming costs related to energy and taxes,
I'll eventually and unfortunately will wind up missing the weak and Ivanka sniffing SOB.
Run for president in 2024. Ya' got one vote here. You can use the catchphrase, "Make
America Independent Again". Red, White, and Blue hats, etc. Your campaign rally speeches
would be epically entertaining in the gnashing of establishment journo's teeth as they
described them.
Drumpf the rancid orange golem played you all to the very last coda, pissing in your eyes
as he pardoned a most rancorous group of bent buddies and chosen criminal diversities . maga
men hung to dry, swinging in the wind.
Half of america shafted and stockholm syndromed, as the fake fat narcissist waltzes of to
play golf and hide the ginger squirrel with the reanimated frank-epstein and his
transhumanised teenage sorority clones in tel-aviv.
by the way see where this link leads: antifa.com .
hint: the whitehouse.
@LarryS nd
its American friends get what they want, no matter what.
Trump was terrible and I'm glad to see him gone. Problem is Biden & Co. will probably
be worse, letting in countless third worlders and pandering to BLM, trannies and countless
other perverts and sexual curiosities.
Neither party represents the interests of the American people. Did we really want 14
million illegals here and $6 trillion spent on failed adventures in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
etc.?
I harken back to H L Mencken who said both parties spend their time proving the other is
unfit to govern and are both right.
The pardoning of the Blackwater scum has fascinating implications for any country with a
Status of Forces Agreement /Visiting Forces Agreement, which is what, 80% of the world?
A host country might want to revisit these terms if it means that their women &
children could be raped, killed, mutilated whilst the perpetrators walk free.
This is beyond belief. Are Americans blind? Is there something in the water they
drink?
A whole population bent over with their posteriors pointed at the sky, willingly accepting
the abuse by the zionists.
Love them or hate them, these jews dream big. Bravo
Another on target Giraldi article. The ultimate blame for our being occupied and used
without a shot being fired is with American gullibility and blindness. How does a global
power, in almost every way, become the lap dog, errand boy, bully and financier for such an
ungrateful, blood sucking little country? We have created a Frankenstein Monster for the
world.
@SolontoCroesus
ight Palestinians were there even if there was strong Israel Lobby domestic pressure. But in
1979 Carter–distracted by the fall of the Shah–merely brokered a Egyptian-Israeli
peace treaty deal that eliminated Egypt from the conflict, and the lack of the deterrent they
represented meant meant hat Israel was free to do what it liked in the West Bank and attack
Lebanon. The Palestinians will never get another US president like Carter. Israel does not
want an agreement, the current situation suits them very well. So Iran is not deterring
Israel from doing anything it wants to do. Moreover, Israel likes having a pseudo threat like
Iran.
Well I have to say this comes as a surprise. To think that American politicians take
bribes, favour one particular group etc etc is news to me. However, Trump catering to the
foreskin modifiers and the dick cheese eliminators is the good news.
The bad news is the new team is already in bed not only with the foreskin challenged
sticks, but with the chopsticks and every other stick with a dollar bill wrapped around the
head. When the 25th collides with Joe's worn out pecker and Kamala takes over that will be
the sign that circumcised or not we are all fucked.
As some readers commented on UR, honesty is the best policy, turn the other cheek and love
conquers hate. All good advice I am sure but redundant and inapplicable in the world we live
in.
The ruled live by these rules but the rulers live by their own !
oe Biden enters the White House with an entourage of faces very familiar to OffGuardian, and
many of those readers who have been with us since the beginning.
Glassy-eyed Jen Psaki is once again taking the White House press briefings. Victoria
"Fuck the EU" Nuland
is going to be secretary of state, and Samantha Power is hoisted back onto a platform from
which she can berate the rest of the world for not following America's "moral example" by
bombing Syria back to the stone age.
It was the machinations of these people – along with Biden as VP, John Kerry as
Secretary of State and of course Barack Obama leading the charge – that lead to the coup
in Ukraine, the war in Donbass and – indirectly – the creation of this website. For
it was our comments on the Guardian telling this truth that got everyone here banned, multiple
times.
So, for us, pointing out cold-war style propaganda is like slipping back into a comfy pair
of shoes.
A good thing too, because with this coterie of neocon-style warmongers comes another
familiar friend: the propaganda war on Putin's Russia. Throughout the media and on every front,
all within hours of Biden's inauguration.
Now, anti-Russia nonsense didn't go away while Trump was President – if anything it
became deranged to the point of literal insanity in many quarters – but it definitely
quietened down in the last 12 months, with the outbreak of the "pandemic".
Of course underneath the standard pot-stirring propaganda to keep the "new cold war" on the
boil, there is the Navalny narrative. An incredibly contrived piece of political theatre that
may even evolve into a full-on attempt at regime change in Moscow.
He knew he would be arrested if he returned to Russia, so his doing so was pure theatre.
That fact is only underlined by the media's reaction to his 30 day jail sentence.
Yes, that's thirty DAYS, not years. He'll be out before spring. Even if he's convicted of
the numerous charges of embezzlement and fraud, he faces only 3 years in prison.
On the same day as Biden's inauguration, the European Parliament announced that Russia
should be punished for arresting Navalny, by having the Nordstream 2 pipeline project
closed down . (Closing this pipeline down would open up the European market to buy US gas,
instead of Russia. This is a complete coincidence).
And then, the day after Biden's inauguration, the European Court of Human Rights announced
they had found Russia guilty of war crimes during the
5-day war in South Ossetia in 2008. The report was subject to a gleeful (and terrible)
write-up by (who else?) Luke Harding. (Why they waited 13 years to make this announcement
remains a mystery)
It doesn't stop there, already Western pundits and
Russian "celebrities" are trying to encourage street protests in support of Alexei Navalny.
An anonymous Guardian editorial states Navalny's
"bravery needs backing" , whatever that means.
But are there bigger aims behind this as well? Do they hope they can create another Maidan
but this time in Moscow? That would be insane, but you can't rule it out.
One thing is for sure, though; they work fast. Less than two days in office, and we've
already got a new colour revolution kicking off. Speedy work.
Reply
captain spam , Jan 25, 2021 7:33 PM
As McFaul said recently, we must combat Putin! His support for traditional Christian
family values is an absolutely intolerable threat to the liberal international order!! What
we desperately need is non stop gay anal sex for everybody, especially children, non stop
free abortions for sluts, and as many child trannies as possible!!! We must force through
this progressive enlightened agenda everywhere!!!!
Bob , Jan 25, 2021 4:15 PM
The overthrow crew is back in business. They will continue chipping away at the old USSR.
Belarus seems pretty ripe, though under Trump CIA failed at the overthrow earlier this year.
But with Victoria Nuland and gang in there we will see a real push to dismantle Russia and
China. Also watch for Islamic terror in Xinjiang in Western China with CIA sponsored Uygher
militants. Jan 24, 2021 6:18 AM
For people who prefer information to propaganda, a little ethnographic insight into the
reality of life in Russia, courtesy of Dr Jeremy Morris:
If it's a CIA only operation, Russians are obviously incredibly gullible and
impressionable, and in surprisingly huge numbers (and this is only one brief snapshot of what
apparently is happening across 11 time zones):
Yup, I'd say there's at least a couple of dozens of people who came together in that show
of discontent toward a government that, if not exactly among the ranks of this particular
riff-raff, is hugely popular.
And then there are these CIA trained Russian provocateurs caught on video:
Navalny has heroically returned to Russia after the dastardly Putins hapless goons
Novichoked his tea/ water bottle/ underpants* delete as appropriate. But at least we are now
seeing the truth emerge from completely impartial and wholly credible CIA funded sources like
the Victims Of Communism Foundation. Now we know the horrific facts about 300 million Weegers
and 500 million Georgians being turned into soap and lamp shades. We must nuke Putins dacha
immediately. Show him we mean business. Its a typical underhand trick of the evil Vlad,
genociding millions of people without leaving any evidence. Further proof of his guilt, if
any were needed.
Charlie , Jan 23, 2021 8:08 PM
Just running a theory by you all, was the Ukraine colour revolution a response to Russian
push-back on the WMD narrative in Syria and Obama's red line that failed the sniff test
(that's bleach, not chloride gas)? Mess in our back yard and we'll mess in yours. If so Putin
handled it very well, all things considered, ended up more secure than before, in spite of
everything.
America,s aim after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990 was to split Russia apart gut
it and subdue it! Playing silly buggers on Russia's border would have happened no matter
what! The globalists want complete control! Georgia Chechnya are other examples of globalist
interference. China is getting the same treatment.
niko , Jan 23, 2021 8:01 PM
Duck and cover the Russians are coming! Prelude to false flag cyberterrorism and the dark
winter? Whatever comes next, we need to start fighting the real enemy.
"Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our
great adversary remains the apparatus -- the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the
one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our
brothers' enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No
matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to
this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in
others." -Simone Weil
Charlie , Jan 23, 2021 7:51 PM
Did anyone catch that interview Aaron Mate did with Luke Harding? Think it was while Aaron
was still with the real news. Poor old Luke thought he was talking to a confirmed Democrat
and Aaron took his piece of shit book on Russia 2016 to pieces, well worth a look if it's
still up.
Guy , Jan 23, 2021 7:44 PM
"But are there bigger aims behind this as well? Do they hope they can create another
Maidan but this time in Moscow? That would be insane, but you can't rule it out."
The Western media propaganda machine IS insane . Jealousy in big bold letters because
Russia , Russia seems to be doing quite well economically ,regardless of Western media
machinations.
Mercuns would love to rerun Maidan. I don't think they have the numbers in Rooskia though.
Division, internal conflict, confusion that will have to do for the short term.
dr death , Jan 24, 2021 3:42 PM Reply to
Victor G.
indeed but burger-on-a- bagel land has got plenty of its own now
the thrashing bankrupt golem is about to have its own yeltsin 'moment'..
just lining up the ducks
now where did I put that novichok, I mean icing sugar, I mean mrs mays concealer.
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
@42 I'm sure Maduro would take dollars.....or gold. Of course buying Venezuelan oil from an
evil brutal socialist dictator would be a major climb down.
The USA doesn't pay for oil or gas. It takes over the mining company, demands the project
be funded by local or national borrowing from USA banks with sovereign guarantees, sells the
product to a separate US company that pays peanuts to the miner and then onsells for a major
markup (transfer pricing). Its called modern day stealing of other countries resources.
Look at the report on keystone that you cited at #39 where
The Canadian province that invested $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money in the controversial
Keystone XL project is now considering the sale of pipe and materials to try to recoup some
funds.
"If the project ends, there would be assets that could be sold, such as enormous
quantities of pipe," Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said in a press conference Monday.
Meanwhile the directors and shareholders got their fat checks and dividends from the
municipal loan funds ;)
The USA will not pay in gold until it is on its knees - it simply will not pay. See how
the USA 'bought' Tik Tok: blatant extortion/theft. The same as was done to Japan's high tech
in the 60's 70's or whenever. Thieves.
Policy to stop Nord Stream 2 will continue under Biden, although here we're told
Biden will extend New START Treaty by the same person, Biden's nominee for Secretary of
State, Antony Blinken.
Defense nominee Austin was also covered in this article where we can see he reads from
the same playbook as those who went before him. So it seems like continuity of its dystopic
imperial policy will be what we see from the Outlaw US Empire, although we'll soon see if
that also applies to Trump's Farewell boast that he was proud not to have started any "new"
wars.
@42 I'm sure Maduro would take dollars.....or gold. Of course buying Venezuelan oil from an
evil brutal socialist dictator would be a major climb down.
The USA doesn't pay for oil or gas. It takes over the mining company, demands the project
be funded by local or national borrowing from USA banks with sovereign guarantees, sells the
product to a separate US company that pays peanuts to the miner and then onsells for a major
markup (transfer pricing). Its called modern day stealing of other countries resources.
Look at the report on keystone that you cited at #39 where
The Canadian province that invested $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money in the controversial
Keystone XL project is now considering the sale of pipe and materials to try to recoup some
funds.
"If the project ends, there would be assets that could be sold, such as enormous
quantities of pipe," Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said in a press conference Monday.
Meanwhile the directors and shareholders got their fat checks and dividends from the
municipal loan funds ;)
The USA will not pay in gold until it is on its knees - it simply will not pay. See how
the USA 'bought' Tik Tok: blatant extortion/theft. The same as was done to Japan's high tech
in the 60's 70's or whenever. Thieves.
Hi b, Jim Kunstler has an interesting piece this week on the impact of EROI on the US
recovery or lack thereof in the US shake sector. Just not enough cheap energy to get their
economy going. Will Germany hold up against Trumps last minute sanctions against
Nordstream if Biden maintains them? If Germany doesn't won't that put Germany in the same
over expensive boat as US and lead to economic stagnation? Especially if all Russia's
cheap energy ends up in China, which it almost certainly will.
"Why do the USA, UK and Europe so hate Russia? How it is that Western antipathy, once
thought due to anti-Communism, could be so easily revived over a crisis in distant Ukraine,
against a Russia no longer communist? Why does the West accuse Russia of empire-building,
when 15 states once part of the defunct Warsaw Pact are now part of NATO, and NATO troops now
flank the Russian border? These are only some of the questions Creating Russophobia
iinvestigates. Mettan begins by showing the strength of the prejudice against Russia through
the Western response to a series of events: the Uberlingen mid-air collision, the Beslan
hostage- taking, the Ossetia War, the Sochi Olympics and the crisis in Ukraine. He then
delves into the historical, religious, ideological and geopolitical roots of the detestation
of Russia in various European nations over thirteen centuries since Charlemagne competed with
Byzantium for the title of heir to the Roman Empire. Mettan examines the geopolitical
machinations expressed in those times through the medium of religion, leading to the great
Christian schism between Germanic Rome and Byzantium and the European Crusades against
Russian Orthodoxy. This history of taboos, prejudices and propaganda directed against the
Orthodox Church provides the mythic foundations that shaped Western disdain for contemporary
Russia. From the religious and imperial rivalry created by Charlemagne and the papacy to the
genesis of French, English, German and then American Russophobia, the West has been engaged
in more or less violent hostilities against Russia for a thousand years. Contemporary
Russophobia is manufactured through the construction of an anti-Russian discourse in the
media and the diplomatic world, and the fabrication and demonization of The Bad Guy, now
personified by Vladimir Putin. Both feature in the meta-narrative, the mythical framework of
the ferocious Russian bear ruled with a rod of iron by a vicious president. A synthetic
reading of all these elements is presented in the light of recent events and in particular of
the Ukrainian crisis and the recent American elections, showing how all the resources of the
West's soft power have been mobilized to impose the tale of bad Russia dreaming of global
conquest. "By hating Russia, one hurts oneself. Swiss journalist Guy Mettan pieces together
the reasons of detestation of the Kremlin and of a rhetoric that goes back to Napoleonic
times despite the long list of aggressions perpetrated in the meantime by the West. And he
explains why pushing Moscow toward Asia is a very serious error." -Panorama, Italy "Like
Saddam Hussein's mythical weapons of massive destruction in 2003, Peter the Great's fake will
has been used to justify the aggressions and invasions that the Europeans, and now the
Americans, still carry out against Russia." -Liberation, France
"Not at all, the center of russophobia will now be Germany. In is not a surprise that
Russia recently declared that the center of russophobia in the EU are now France and
Germany."
Nord Stream 2 will be completed contrary to the opinions of four to five commenters on
here. This is Germany & Russia that you are talking about. Sanctions did not stop the
Crimean bridge. It makes no economic sense to deny European/West Asian (Russian produced)
Liquid natural gas in order to subsidise 'transit fees' to Ukraine. The U.S.Congress'
sanctions here are untenible, but don't expect Germany & Russia to publish how they will
do it until completion.
Reuters gleeful that Gazprom announced the possibility Nord Stream 2 won't be completed
due to "political pressure." But such a warning is part of all standard potential risks
announcements accompanying any prospectus--a fact Reuters ignored--which in this case is for
the issuance of Eurobonds, although I question the judgement in making them dollar
denominated.
Its not contrary to my opinion, but you appear to be young and naive person. There is
nothing new in that German policy, for example it supported the building of pipelines from
the USSR over President Reagan objections. Which does not mean that it wasn't enemy of the
USSR - its destruction was the key for taking control of Eastern Europe and turning it into
Germany's Latin America.
Someone can hate you and may want to make money at the same time too. But as soon as there
is weakness, they will pounce on you and stab you in the back.
As for the pipeline, it will remain under a puppet russian government. No loss there
too.
What the EU wants is to subdue Russia and later dismember it, taking hold of the
population and natural resources.
In the mean time, there is nothing wrong with making some money too. As the EU worships a
good living too.
By 2016 the concept of "liberal democracy," once bright with promise, had dulled into a
neoliberal politics that was neither liberal nor democratic. The Democratic Party's turn toward
market-driven policies, the bipartisan dismantling of the public sphere, the inflight marriage
of Wall Street and Silicon Valley in the cockpit of globalization -- these interventions
constituted the long con of neoliberal governance, which enriched a small minority of Americans
while ravaging most of the rest.
Jackson Lears is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History at Rutgers,
Editor in Chief of Raritan, and the author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern
America, 1877–1920, among other books. (January 2021)
>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to
extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning
Assange.
Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered
by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he
attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.
Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand
the psychology of elite US WASPs.
These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the
cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria,
rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.
Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that
moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.
Casino magnate and Israeli patriot multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of the world's
richest men, died in Las Vegas on January 11 th at age 87. He had been suffering
from cancer and has been buried at the
Mount of Olives Cemetery in Israel . When his body arrived in Israel it was met by Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in United States
history. Tributes to the fallen "hero" poured in from the political class in both the United
States and Israel and it has even been reported that President Donald Trump was intending to
hoist the American flag at half mast over federal buildings to honor the "great humanitarian
philanthropist." Unfortunately, the flag was already at half mast honoring the death of Capitol
Police Force officer Brian Sicknick, who was murdered in the Capitol building last
Wednesday.
Trump has not mentioned the service unto death of Sicknick and the flag lowering itself was
apparently a bit of an afterthought on behalf of the White House, but he had plenty to say
about his good buddy Adelson, who has been the principal funder of the Republican Party over
the past five years. As he can no longer use Twitter, the president's
condolences were posted on the White House site: "Melania and I mourn the passing of
Sheldon Adelson, and send our heartfelt condolences to his wife Miriam, his children and
grandchildren. Sheldon lived the true American dream. His ingenuity, genius, and creativity
earned him immense wealth, but his character and philanthropic generosity his great name.
Sheldon was also a staunch supporter of our great ally the State of Israel. He tirelessly
advocated for the relocation of the United States embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and its
neighbors. Sheldon was true to his family, his country, and all those that knew him. The world
has lost a great man. He will be missed."
Missing from the Trump eulogy is any mention of what Adelson did for the United States,
which is his country of birth and where he made his fortune engaging in activity that many
would consider to be a vice. In fact, Adelson was all about the Jewish state, positioning
himself as the principal funder of the Republican Party under Donald Trump and receiving in
return as a quid pro quo the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA),
the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights, and a virtual concession that the Jewish state could do whatever it
wants vis-à-vis the Palestinians, to include expelling them from Palestine. Adelson once
commented that Israel does not have to pretend to be a democracy but it must be Jewish,
presumably to help the process of Arab genocide move along.
Adelson's mechanism, initiated under George W. Bush, is familiar to how the Israel Lobby
operates more generally. It consisted of the exploitation of the incessant need of campaign
money by the GOP, which Adelson provided with strings attached. He worked with the Republicans
to completely derail the admittedly faux peace process begun under Bill Clinton, which
depended on a two-state solution, and instead give the Jewish state a free hand to implement
its own unilateral Greater Israel Project extending from "the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean." As part of that expansion, Israel has been building illegal settlements while
also bombing and killing Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians and assassinating scientists and
technicians throughout the region.
All of the interventions against Israel's neighbors took place even though the Jewish state
was not technically at war with anyone. The U.S. meanwhile funded Israeli aggression and
watched the spectacle without any complaint, providing political cover as necessary, while also
maintaining a major military presence in the Middle East to "protect Israel," as Trump recently
admitted.
In short, Sheldon Adelson committed as much as half a billion dollars from his vast fortune
to buy control over a major element of U.S. foreign policy and subordinated American interests
to those of Israel. In addition to direct donations to both major political parties, he also
paid for Congressional "fact finding" trips to Israel and funded a number of pro-Israel
lobbies, so-called charities and other related Jewish projects. It is indisputable that he
wielded an incredible degree of power to shape Washington's actions in the Middle East. In
her own tribute to her dead husband, Miriam Adelson, an Israeli, described how he "crafted
the course of nations."
Adelson was actively engaged on Israel's behalf until the week before his death. He provided
his casino's private 737 luxury executive jet to transport Jonathan Pollard "home" to Israel.
Pollard has served 30 years in prison after being convicted of espionage and was on parole,
which restricted his travel. As yet another a gift to Israel, Donald Trump lifted that
restriction, allowing him to fly to Israel where he received a hero's welcome. It is generally
agreed that Pollard was the most damaging spy in American history, having stolen the keys to
accessing U.S. communications and information gathering systems. A month after Pollard's arrest
in 1985, C.I.A director William Casey stated: "The Israelis used Pollard to obtain our war
plans against the USSR – all of it: the co-ordinates, the firing locations, the
sequences, and Israel sold that information to Moscow for more exit visas for Soviet Jews."
Sheldon Adelson used his wealth and political connections to shield himself from any
criticism due to his openly expressed preference for Israel over the land of his birth. He
famously publicly
stated that he wished he had worn the Israeli Army uniform instead of that of the U.S.
Army, where he served briefly as a draftee. He also expressed his desire that his son would
serve as an Israeli army sniper, presumably allowing him to blow the heads off of Palestinians.
In 2013
Adelson advocated ending nuclear negotiations with Iran and instead detonating a nuclear weapon
in "the middle of the [Iranian] desert," followed by a threat to annihilate the capital city
Tehran, home to 8.6 million, to force Iran to surrender its essentially non-existent nuclear
program.
Other acknowledgements of the impact of Adelson came from officials in
the Trump Administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented how his "efforts to
strengthen the alliance between Israel and the United States the world, Israel and the United
States are safer because of his work." Yeah, right Mike.
So, the world is definitely a better place due to the passing of Sheldon Adelson. Or is it?
His Israeli wife Miriam owns more than 40% of Las Vegas Sands Corp Casinos Inc.,
estimated to be worth in excess of $17 billion. She has proposed that a new chapter be
included in the Jewish bible, the Book of Trump, and has pledged herself to continue her
husband's work. Trump had previously given her the highest award that a president can bestow,
the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Freedom, of course, does not apply to Palestinians. And if
one is concerned that the Democrats will not be cooperative, they too have their own major
donor similar to Adelson. He is an Israeli film producer named Haim Saban, who, echoing a
similar statement by Adelson, said that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
A major scandal is unfolding in the US naval community. It turned out that a whole class
of ships, on which America had pinned great hopes a couple of decades ago, turned out to be
utterly incapable of combat. What exactly are the problems with these ships? Why did they
only show up now? What does the massive corruption in the United States have to do with what
is happening?
Political events in the United States have overshadowed everything that happens in this
country. Including one event related to the Navy, which would indeed have exploded.
We are talking about a whole type of warships, both already delivered to the US Navy, and
those still under construction – the so-called Littoral combat ship (LCS) of the
Freedom type. And it's not that they're useless. And not at the prohibitive cost. And not
even that the gearboxes of the ship's main power plant (GEM) do not withstand the maximum
stroke, and with the speed of 47 knots, which was the ridge of this project, he will never be
able to walk – they also resigned themselves to this.
But at the end of 2020, it turned out that they generally cannot move faster than a dry
cargo ship for more or less a long time. That is, it is not just scrapping metal; it is also
almost stationary scrap metal.
A central rule of a color revolution is to avoid an "orderly transition". The new regime
must have a revolutionary mandate instead of a democratic one. Only then can it operate
outside the constitution and outside the law.
The plan here is to declare not only Trump illegitimate but his whole administration
illegitimate. The new regime can then undo all of Trump's executive decisions. There is no
need to "stuff" the Supreme Court with extra judges. Simply declare Trump's appointments null
and void.
Victoria Nuland, former foreign policy adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, should not be
nominated for undersecretary of state [for political affairs], and if nominated should be
rejected by the Senate.
Nuland played a key role in facilitating a coup in Ukraine that created a civil war costing
10,000 lives and displacing over a million people. She played a key role in arming Ukraine as
well. She advocates radically increased military spending, NATO expansion, hostility toward
Russia, and efforts to overthrow the Russian government.
The United States invested $5 billion in shaping Ukrainian politics, including overthrowing
a democratically elected president who had refused to join NATO. Then-Assistant Secretary of
State Nuland is on
video talking about the U.S. investment and on
audiotape planning to install Ukraine's next leader, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was
subsequently installed.
The Maidan protests, at which Nuland handed out cookies to protesters, were violently
escalated by neo-Nazis and by snipers who opened fire on police. When Poland, Germany, and
France negotiated a deal for the Maidan demands and an early election, neo-Nazis instead
attacked the government and took over. The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the
coup government, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
Nuland has
worked with the openly pro-Nazi Svoboda Party in Ukraine. She was long a leading
proponent of arming Ukraine. She was also an advocate for removing from office the
prosecutor general of Ukraine, whom then-Vice President Joe Biden pushed the president to
remove.
Nuland
wrote this past year that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the
democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia - one that builds on
their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens."
She added:
" Moscow should also see that Washington and its allies are taking concrete steps to shore
up their security and raise the cost of Russian confrontation and militarization. That
includes maintaining robust defense budgets, continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear
weapons systems, and deploying new conventional missiles and missile defenses, . . .
establish permanent bases along NATO's eastern border, and increase the pace and visibility
of joint training exercises."
The United States walked out of the ABM Treaty and later the INF Treaty, began putting
missiles into Romania and Poland, expanded NATO to Russia's border, facilitated a coup in
Ukraine, began arming Ukraine, and started holding massive war rehearsal exercises in Eastern
Europe. But to read Victoria Nuland's account, Russia is simply an irrationally evil and
aggressive force that must be countered by yet more military spending, bases, and hostility.
Some U.S.
military officials say this demonizing of Russia is all about weapons profits and
bureaucratic power, no more fact-based than the Steele Dossier that was
given to the FBI by Victoria Nuland.
SIGNED BY:
Alaska Peace Center
Center for Encounter and Active Non-Violence
CODEPINK
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Greater Brunswick PeaceWorks
Jemez Peacemakers
Knowdrones.com
Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Nukewatch
Peace Action Maine
PEACEWORKERS
Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City
Progressive Democrats of America
Peace Fresno
Peace, Justice, Sustainability NOW!
The Resistance Center for Peace and Justice
RootsAction.org
Veterans For Peace Chapter 001
Veterans For Peace Chapter 63
Veterans For Peace Chapter 113
Veterans For Peace Chapter 115
Veterans For Peace Chapter 132
Wage Peace
World BEYOND War
TimeTraveller 36 minutes ago (Edited)
The funny thing about appointment of Nuland, is that basically every European government
hates her.
Those idiots in the EU complained about Trump. Well the American Empire war machine is
about to ratchet up a notch or three, btches.
Max21c 50 minutes ago
The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the coup government, and Arseniy
Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
The Washington establishment immediately recognized the coup government, and Joe Schmoe
Biden was installed as ruler.
replaceme 52 minutes ago
Why wouldn't they appoint a murderer?
TimeTraveller 50 minutes ago (Edited)
It is funny that they oppose that. After all, every single person in the Democrat party
was in agreement with those foreign coup and wars. If we're going to all of a sudden start
pointing the finger, then there would be no Democrats left in congress
aspnaz again 38 minutes ago
Nationalist, extremist, exceptionalist, white supremicists are okay if they are
democrats.
eatapeach 13 minutes ago
She's an Israel-firster, thus has a pass?
TimeTraveller 51 minutes ago
Those 25 organizations are about to be cancelled. Social Media thought police will be
working overtime tonight.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 52 minutes ago
So we go around the world interfering with every country's internal affairs but when they
do it to the US is meddling in US elections.
does nooner know how hypocritical Washington sounds?
Ms No PREMIUM 36 minutes ago
"pro-Nazi Svoboda party"
That is a headfake there. They are definitely tyrannical and Bolshevik, but not targeting
Jewish people.
As a matter of fact Nuland's Council on Foreign Relations huband-brother (whatever they
really are) is a Kagan, like Kagan-ovich, and that ain't a coincidence.
So you can see what the mob did there. It helps with plausible deniability down the road
when they get charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, aggression,
etc
xious 37 minutes ago
They don't care what you think. You will watch child molesters on TV and like it.
TryingSomethingNew 38 minutes ago
But she's Jewish and a woman, right? Those 25 organizations are clearly Anti-Semitic and
sexist.
Ms No PREMIUM 35 minutes ago
Why would a Jewish Mobster set up a Nazi like color revolutionary group and coup the
Ukraine with it?
Already looking at plausible deniability down the road. Nobody's *** is covered anywhere
but theirs. Their apparatchiks should ponder that.
Pliskin 43 minutes ago
Amurikans should keep the fcuk out of other countries affairs...!
Sad-sacks!
Dzerzhhinsky 48 minutes ago
People think Zionists are anti Nazi, but Zionism is the non Christian version of Nazism.
Herzl the founder of the Zionist party was enamoured with the Nazis, but they rejected him on
religious grounds.
It's natural for Nuland and the other Kaganites to be in bed with Ukrainian Nazis.
Ms No PREMIUM 22 minutes ago remove link
I remember Lavrov getting grilled by angry journalists about why Russia wasn't bombing the
**** out of the color revolutionaries that took the Ukraine with US money.
He basically said, What would you have us do, cause countless deaths of our own Russian
speaking people? They don't care about their deaths but we have to.
Then the first thing the US did was put in illegal bioweapons labs in the Ukraine. There
was a super weird outbreak prior to the color revolution takeover too..Then Russians were
really pissed off. So Putin drew red line in Syria
Russia will get the Ukraine back someday. They have to. It was their bread basket during
last grand minimum.
bluskyes 14 minutes ago
perhaps, when the western threat become stronger than ethnic bias. Though it will probably
split first.
Anthraxed 38 minutes ago
Victoria Noodlebrain should be on Interpol's top 10 most wanted list.
Cautiously Pessimistic 49 minutes ago
Man....I had all but forgotten about many of these scumbags that are resurfacing now in
the Biden administration. This woman should be waterboarded until deceased.
Dzerzhhinsky 46 minutes ago
It's always the same people, the front men change, but behind the scenes it's always the
same people.
RKKA 6 minutes ago
Again, all these demons of the Obama era are striving for power. During the Trump
presidency, we have already forgotten about these devils.
Victoria Nuland, her real Jewish surname is Nudelman, her parents are Moldovan ****. The
parents of the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who seized power as a result of the
Maidan and the coup d'etat, are also Moldovan **** by the name of Valtsman. Already in
adulthood, Petr Valtsman took the name of his wife and became - Poroshenko. They are the
father and mother of the war in Ukraine, and Joe Biden blessed them for this.
Another Ukrainian oligarch, also a ***, Igor Kolomoisky, financed the Ukrainian
nationalist battalions of Azov, Dnepr and Aydar. Tell me, what are these Nazis who are
financed and serve the ****? Adolf spins tirelessly in his coffin!
And you probably thought that the **** are such poor and offended children of the
Holocaust and the Nazis are their enemies? No, **** and Nazis merged in violent ecstasy and
it is time to introduce the term - Jewish Nazism into the lexicon!
de tocqueville's ghost 28 minutes ago
that was a good four years...no new wars. Good going liberals, you voted for a war
monger.
Lt. Shicekopf 14 minutes ago
Yes! Maybe we can do to all kinds of countries what we did to Libya. The continuing
calamity that has been going on in Libya since Obama and Hillary got done with them has been
studiously ignored by all the Western media. Anarchy, chaos, death, an open slave market in
which black Africans are bought and sold by Arab traders. All good stuff to the American
left.
David Q. Little 45 minutes ago
Joe and Hunter owe her a favor.
Musum 19 minutes ago
Neocons are returning with a vengeance.
Death2Fiat 28 minutes ago
Her job is to destroy the US and do the bidding of the Globalists.
tbone654 28 minutes ago
none of it matters... with the dems controlling everything the [M]ilitary [I]ndustrial
[I]ntelligence [C]omplex is gonna ramp up and spend a crap-ton on wars all over the globe...
it's how it works when they have the throttle... everyone was worried about Trump, but he
de-escalated everywhere...
The people have spoken (I mean cheated) and now they must be punished... Ed Koch
Lyman54 34 minutes ago
Yatsenyuk, Nulands pick, was given a Canadian passport. Likely hiding in Manitoba.
ThomasEdmonds 36 minutes ago
Some things in this life don't matter and Biden cares squat. Perhaps these groups can
express their contempt for Samantha Power as well. Let's extend that to his foreign policy
team.
WTFUD 13 minutes ago remove link
Joseph Biden reminds me of Hedley Lamar in Blazing Saddles, forming a posse of the biggest
wackjobs available.
As long as he doesn't put Hunter in charge of the Afghani Poppy Crop Investment Fund then
his Middle-East and Central Asian policy could prove fruitful.
"Diesen takes on and brings together two large phenomena, namely the revolution in
technology and the change in global power relations."
My continual question: Will the Western world's morality evolve quickly enough to keep
pace with technological progress? I have no worries about Eurasian morality. Rather, it's the
West's loss of its 500 years of domination and what it will do to recoup that immoral
position that's most troublesome.
@anarchyst hen made
public utilities available for all (obviously without compensation to the owners). No more of
the sad "private company" excuse, and no more billions into the pockets of criminals who hate
us.
Also, make Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai et al. serve serious jail time for election
tampering if nothing else. Both to send out a clear warning to others, and for the simple
decency to see justice served.
Of course this will not happen short of a French Revolution-style regime shift. But since
(sadly) the same is equally true even for your extremely generous and modest proposal, I see
no harm in dreaming a little bigger.
It seems even more relevant today than it did then. It's longish, so hang in there if you're
able. In these post-'Capitol' social media de-platforming days, remember that (Chrome) Google
algorithms suppress websites from the conservative and religious right to the 'subversive left
(wsws and popular resistance, for instance). And Google bought Youtube in Oct. of 2006 for a
paltry $1.65 billion.
If you haven't read it and seen the captioned photos, you'll love ' Google Is Not What It
Seems' by Julian Assange, an extract from his new book When Google Met Wikileaks,
wikileaks.org
Also see Scott Ritter's 'By banning Trump and his supporters, Google and Twitter are turning
the US into a facsimile of the regimes we once condemned', RT.com, Jan. 9, 2021 Two excerpts:
"Digital democracy became privatized when its primary architect, Jared Cohen, left the State
Department in September 2010 to take a new position with internet giant Google as the head of
'Google Ideas' now known as 'Jigsaw'. Jigsaw is a global initiative 'think tank' intended to
"spearhead initiatives to apply technology solutions to problems faced by the developing
world." This was the same job Cohen was doing while at the State Department.
Cohen promoted the notion of a "digital democracy contagion" based upon his belief
that the "young people in the Middle East are just a mouse click away, they're just a
Facebook connection away, they're just an instant message away, they're just a text message
away" from sufficiently organizing to effect regime change. Cohen and Google were heavily
involved the January 2011 demonstrations in Egypt, using social networking sites to call for
demonstrations and political reform; the "Egyptian contagion" version of 'digital democracy'
phenomena was fueled by social networking internet sites run by Egyptian youth groups which
took a very public stance opposing the Mubarak regime and calling for political reform."
*************************************
On Sept. 18 , Julian Assange's new book of that name was published. The material was largely
fashioned by conversations he'd had with Google's Eric Schmidt in 2011 at Ellingham Hall in
Norfolk, England where Assange was living under house arrest. The ostensible purpose of the
requested meeting was to discuss idea for a book that Schmidt and Jared Cohen (advisor to both
Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton) were going to write, and in fact did: ' The New Digital
Age ' (2013). They were accompanied by the book's editor Scott Malcomson, former senior
advisor for the UN and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who eventually worked at the
US State Department, plus Lisa Shields, vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations,
closely tied to the State Department, who was Schmidt's partner at the time. Hmmm. The plot, as
they say, thickens. From the book's blurb :
'For several hours the besieged leader of the world's most famous insurgent publishing
organization and the billionaire head of the world's largest information empire locked horns.
The two men debated the political problems faced by society, and the technological solutions
engendered by the global network -- from the Arab Spring to Bitcoin. They outlined radically
opposing perspectives: for Assange, the liberating power of the Internet is based on its
freedom and statelessness. For Schmidt, emancipation is at one with US foreign policy
objectives and is driven by connecting non-Western countries to American companies and markets.
These differences embodied a tug-of-war over the Internet's future that has only gathered force
subsequently.'
Some background that will hopefully entice you to listen to the 42-minute Telesur video
(sorry, no transcript) I'll embed below; this is the short version: ' Assange claims Google is
in bed with US government'
Note that in other interviews Assange names 'other private and public security agencies' as
well, and names the figures showing how deep Google is into smartphones and almost every nation
on the planet. 'Do not be evil'.
If your appetite hasn't been sufficiently whetted to watch the 38-minute Telesur interview,
you might at a minimum read 'When Google Met WikiLeaks: Battle for a New Digital Age' by
Nozomi Hayase . An excerpt or three, after reminding us that in his earlier 2012 book
Cypherpunks, Assange had said that " the internet, our greatest tool for emancipation,
has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen
":
'Assange unveils how, contrary to Google's efforts to create a positive public image by
giving away free storage, making it appear not like a corporation driven solely by profit
motives, this seemingly philanthropic company is a willing participant in its own government
co-optation. Indeed, he argues, Google Ideas was birthed as a brainchild of a Washington
think-tank.
Assange described how "Google's bosses
genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they
see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment
of the 'benevolent superpower.'" (p. 35). This process is so gradual and discrete that it is
hardly conscious on the part of the actors. This digital mega-corporation, through getting too
close to the US State Department and NSA, began to incorporate their ambitions and come to see
no evil. This internalization of imperial values created what Assange called " the impenetrable
banality of 'don't be evil' " (p. 35). It appears that bosses at Google genuinely think they
are doing good, while they are quickly becoming part of a power structure that Assange
described as a " capricious
global system of secret loyalties , owed favors, and false consensus, of saying one thing in
public and the opposite in private" (p. 7). Allegiance creates obedience and an unspoken
alliance creates a web of self-deception through which one comes to believe one's own lies and
becomes entangled in them. [snip]
' Assange pointed to how "the hidden fist
that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army,
Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps" (p. 43).
Google does not see evil in itself. By embedding with U.S. central authority, this global
tech company not only fails to see the invisible fist of "American strategic and economic
hegemony" that dictates the market, but moreover aspires "to adorn the hidden
fist like a velvet glove" (p. 43). By advancing the force of monopoly, they subordinate civic
values to economic and U.S. hegemonic interests and escape any real accountability. They no
longer recognize the unmediated market that responds to people's demands, a true market that
functions as a space of democratic accountability. This normalization of control leads to a
subversion of law, creating a rogue state where a ripple effect of corruption is created, as
individuals, companies and the state each betray their own stated principles.'
'In a sense, one might conclude that Assange's new book is in itself another leak . In
publishing what one might call the "GoogleFiles", Assange conducts his usual job of publishing
in the public interest with due diligence by providing the verbatim transcript and audio of the
secret meeting. This time, the source of the material was Google themselves who sought out
Assange for their publication.'
How wonderful it is that he's rocking Google's Very Large Boat. Hayase also writes that
Cohen and Schmidt engage in their own 'statist' version of the 'good whistleblower/bad
whistleblower meme we're familiar with. Pfffft.
Google used its front page to back
the US government's campaign to bomb Syria: snapshot
More if you'd like it:
From HuffPo's : Julian Assange Fires Back At Eric Schmidt and Google's 'Digital
Colonialism', one exchange that's significant:
' HP : What about the substance of Schmidt's defense, that Google is pretty much at war with
the U.S. government and that they don't cooperate? He claims that they're working to encrypt
everything so that neither the NSA nor anyone else can get in. What would you say to that?
JA : It's a duplicitous statement. It's a lawyerly statement. Eric Schmidt did not say that
Google encrypts everything so that the US government can't get at them. He said quite
deliberately that Google has started to encrypt exchanges of information -- and that's hardly
true, but it has increased amount of encrypted exchanges. But Google has not been encrypting
their storage information. Google's whole business model is predicated on Google being able to
access the vast reservoir of private information collected from billions of people each day.
And if Google can access it, then of course the U.S. government has the legal right to access
it, and that's what's been going on.
As a result of the Snowden revelation, Google was caught out. It tried to pretend that those
revelations were not valid, and when that failed, it started to engage in a public relations
campaign to try and say that it wasn't happy with what the National Security Agency was doing,
and was fighting against it. Now, I'm sure that many people in Google are not happy with what
has been occurring. But that doesn't stop it happening, because Google's business model is to
collect as much information as possible and people store it, index and turn it into predictive
profiles. Similarly, at Eric Schmidt's level, Google is very closely related to the U.S.
government and there's a revolving door between the State Department and Google . '
For the Pffft factor plus some history of WikiLeaks' betrayal by both Daniel
Domscheit-Berg ( his Wiki ), and the Guardian,
the
Daily Dot's : ' When WikiLeaks cold-called Hillary Clinton',
including:
'Within hours, Harrison's call was answered via State Department backchannels. Lisa Shields,
then- Google Executive Eric
Schmidt's girlfriend and vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, reached out
through one of WikiLeak's own, Joseph Farrell, to confirm it was indeed WikiLeaks calling to
speak with Clinton. [snip]
'But in an act of gross negligence the Guardian newspaper -- our former partner -- had
published the confidential decryption
password to all 251,000 cables in a chapter heading in its book, rushed out hastily in
February 2011.(1) By mid-August we discovered that a former German employee -- whom I had
suspended in 2010 -- was cultivating business relationships with a variety of organizations and
individuals by shopping around the location of the encrypted file, paired with the password's
whereabouts in the book. At the rate the information was spreading, we estimated that within
two weeks most intelligence agencies, contractors, and middlemen would have all the cables, but
the public would not.'
Background on
the Rassmussen story to make sure he was elected head of NATO by shutting down Roj TV:
Interview: Roj TV, ECHR and Wikileaks by Naila Bozo
Note: Easy Copying from the Café to the Café didn't go well. Everything
doubled up, and not in the same order, and none of the quotation font colors hopped aboard. But
it is what it is, and trying to repair it further seems Quixotic.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
From comments: "The lady martyr, a 14 year air force veteran will be a rallying cry to bring
down the corrupt swamp. As Pepe says, the deplorables will become the ungovernables. The real
red necks from the intermountain west were not represented. They will be there next time and
angry."
Notable quotes:
"... Since the global private finance elite can't start a global war they have to resort to manufactured civil warfare to keep the masses under control and brainwashed against the private finance TINA. ..."
"... The election was stolen. The fraud was blatant, in your face. The election process, the only peaceful means for a transfer of power according to the wishes of the electorate is seen as fatally undermined by a significant portion of the electorate. ..."
Here's what Steve Bannon's MAGA war-room had to say on today's events..."...What people need
to understand is that there's a growing sense among the Deplorables that they've been betrayed
not only by their political leaders, but the very institutions that were designed theoretically
to protect their liberties."
Who by the way knew that members of Congress have gas masks
under their seats ?
Tear gas was deployed in the Capitol rotunda, so the order came down for lawmakers to ready
gas masks that are stored under their seats. Allred helped some his colleagues take out
their masks as Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, a Marine Corps veteran, provided instruction.
"When you put your mask on, breathe slowly or you'll hyperventilate," Gallego said,
according to Allred.
There surely is a lot of hyperventilating right now. Trump is accused of inciting
violence.
It
doesn't read like that . In fact Trump spoke out against violence and called on the
people to leave peacefully only to get censored by the blue tick monopoly:
If this was the nakedcapitalism web site I would have no question about what the TINA
referenced (private finance) but in this posting I am not so sure that is so clear.
How can America have an epiphany moment about the mythological left/right when top/bottom
is the reality that TINA should be all about?
Since the global private finance elite can't start a global war they have to resort to
manufactured civil warfare to keep the masses under control and brainwashed against the
private finance TINA.
A shit show civil war to keep focus off the real TINA of global private finance......and b
wants to call that style.....
The election was stolen. The fraud was blatant, in your face. The election process, the only peaceful means for a
transfer of power according to the wishes of the electorate is seen as fatally undermined by
a significant portion of the electorate.
SCOTUS washed their hands of it.
So if their votes don't count and the highest court in the land won't remedy the situation
then the only alternative is either dissolve the union or a radical overhaul of the union.
Personally I don't think the latter will ever happen.
The only question is will the dissolution of the union be peaceful or violent!
Trump obviously wants better diplomatic relations with Russia. He is reluctant to
counter its military might. He is doing his best to make it richer. Just consider the
headlines below. With all those good things Trump did for Putin, intense suspicions of
Russian influence over him is surely justified.
There followed 34 headlines and links to stories about Trump actions, from closing Russian
consulates to U.S. attacks on Russian troops, that were hostile to Russia.
In fact no other U.S. administration since the cold war has been more aggressive towards
Russia than Trump's.
But some U.S. media continue to claim that Trump's behavior towards Russia has not been
hostile at all. Consider this line
in Politico about anti-Russian hawks in the incoming Biden administration:
Nuland and Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving the Obama
administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign policy --
particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Where please has Trump 'appeased' Vladimir Putin?
Here are a number of headlines which appeared in U.S. media since we published our first
list two years ago. Which of the described actions were designed to 'appease' Putin or
Russia?
When one adds up all those actions one can only find that Trump cares more about Russia,
than about the U.S. and its NATO allies. Only with Trump being under Putin's influence,
knowingly or unwittingly, could he end up doing Russia so many favors.
Why, you certainly could view most (if not all) of those actions as favors.
People feel attacked, unite, rally around the flag. Internal problems are blamed on the
external enemy. The sanctions, the sort the West likes to impose, help develop domestic
industries. Etc. Yeah, favors.
Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the Russian
émigré mafia that had relocated to the US in south Queens in New York City. A
major difference!
Well, the logic is to destroy or ad least severely weaken Russia. Yet damn Russia is
getting stronger and stronger, hence what ever happened under Trump's watch must have been a
favor to Russia.
Competent government would look itself in the mirror and admit it is their own fault and
stupidity, but that ship sailed long time ago for US.
"... It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. ..."
"... Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power. ..."
"... The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity Politics. ..."
"... I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks. ..."
"... Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some position to mitigate. ..."
"... the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way, you merely throw his ballot in the trash. ..."
"... Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable mail in the lobby under the mailboxes. ..."
"... His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy. ..."
"... As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. ..."
"... inventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. ..."
"... The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious. ..."
"... Paper ballots as ascribed by Tulsi Gabbard legislation is the only safe option for elections. Kudos to Tulsi! ..."
"... Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless, coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters. ..."
"... Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents in history. ..."
"... Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of slavery. ..."
"... Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced, lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump says," I really don't know anything about them." ..."
"... "I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering, corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp! ..."
A few months ago it looked like the re-election of Trump was almost certain, but now there was a close race between Trump
and Biden? What happen during the last months?
In the months before the election, the Democrats used the "Covid pandemic" to put in place voting by mail. The argument was used
that people who safely go to supermarkets and restaurants could catch Covid if they stood in voting lines. Never before used on a
large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
There are many credible reports of organized vote fraud committed by Democrats. The only question is whether the Republican establishment
will support challenging the documented fraud or whether Trump will be pressured to concede in order to protect the reputation of
American Democracy.
It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early
hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials
have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being
ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase
Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this
technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the
hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his
wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power.
People do not understand. They think an election has been held when in fact what has occurred is that massive vote fraud has been
used to effect a revolution against red state white America. Leaders of the revolution, such as Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
are demanding a list of Trump supporters who are "to be held accountable." Calls are being made for the arrest of Tucker Carlson,
the only mainstream journalist who supported President Trump.
In a recent column I wrote:
"Think what it means that the entirety of the US media, allegedly the 'watchdogs of democracy,' are openly involved in participating
in the theft of a presidential election.
"Think what it means that a large number of Democrat public and election officials are openly involved in the theft of a presidential
election.
"It means that the United States is split irredeemably. The hatred for white people that has been cultivated for many years,
portraying white Americans as "systemic racists," together with the Democrats' lust for power and money, has destroyed national
unity. The consequence will be the replacement of rules with force."
Mainstream media in Europe claim, that Trump had "divided" the United States. But isn`t it actually the other way around,
that his opponents have divided the country?
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism , the European and US media speak with
one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. Russiagate
was a CIA/FBI successful effort to block Trump from reducing tensions with Russia. In 1961 in his last address to the American people
President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the growing power of the military/industrial complex was a threat to American democracy.
We ignored his warning and now have security agencies more powerful than the President.
The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity
Politics. Identity politics replaced Marxist class war with race and gender war. White people, and especially white heterosexual
males, are the new oppressor class. This ideology causes race and gender disunity and prevents any unified opposition to the security
agencies ability to impose its agendas by controlling explanations. Opposition to Trump cemented the alliance between Democrats,
media, and the Deep State.
It is possible that the courts will decide who will be sworn into office at January 20, 2021. Do you except a phase of uncertainty
or even a constitutional crisis?
There is no doubt that numerous irregularities indicate that the election was stolen and that the ground was well laid in advance.
Trump intends to challenge the obvious theft. However, his challenges will be rejected in Democrat ruled states, as they were part
of the theft and will not indict themselves. This means Trump and his attorneys will have to have constitutional grounds for taking
their cases to the federal Supreme Court. The Republicans have a majority on the Court, but the Court is not always partisan.
Republicans tend to be more patriotic than Democrats, who denounce America as racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist. This patriotism
makes Republicans impotent when it comes to political warfare that could adversely affect America's reputation. The inclination of
Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election. Republicans fear the impact on America's reputation
of having it revealed that America's other major party plotted to steal a presidental election.
Red state Americans, on the other hand, have no such fear. They understand that they are the targets of the Democrats, having
been defined by Democrats as "racist white supremacist Trump deplorables."
The introduction of a report of the Heritage Foundation states that "the United States has a long and unfortunate history
of election fraud". Are the 2020 presidential elections another inglorious chapter in this long history?
This time the fraud is not local as in the past. It is the result of a well organized national effort to get rid of a president
that the Establishment does not accept.
Somehow you get the impression that in the USA – as in many European countries democracy is just a facade – or am I wrong?
You are correct. Trump is the first non-establishment president who became President without being vetted by the Establishment
since Ronald Reagan. Trump was able to be elected only because the Establishment thought he had no chance and took no measures to
prevent his election. A number of studies have concluded that in the US the people, despite democracy and voting, have zero input
into public policy.
Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American democracy is organized in order to prevent
the people from having a voice. A political campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense
contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the winning candidate is indebted to his funders,
and these are the people whom he serves.
European mainstream media are portraying Biden as a luminous figure. Should Biden become president, what can be expected
in terms of foreign and security policy, especially in regard to China, Russia and the Middle East? I mean, the deep state and the
military-industrial complex remain surely nearly unchanged.
Biden will be a puppet, one unlikely to be long in office. His obvious mental confusion will be used either to rule through him
or to remove him on grounds of mental incompetence. No one wants the nuclear button in the hands of a president who doesn't know
which day of the week it is or where he is.
The military/security complex needs enemies for its power and profit and will be certain to retain the list of desirable foreign
enemies -- Russia, Iran, China, and any independent-inclined country in Latin America. Being at war is also a way of distracting
the people of the war against their liberties.
What the military/security complex might not appreciate is that among its Democrat allies there are some, such as Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are ideological revolutionaries. Having demonized red state America and got rid of Trump (assuming
the electoral fraud is not overturned by the courts), Ocasio-Cortez and her allies intend to revolutionize the Democrat Party and
make it a non-establishment force. In her mind white people are the Establishment, which we already see from her demands for a list
of Trump supporters to be punished.
I think I'm not wrong in assuming that a Biden-presidency would mean more identity politics, more political correctness
etc. for the USA. How do you see this?
Identity politics turns races and genders against one another. As white people -- "systemic racists" -- are defined as the oppressor
class, white people are not protected from hate speech and hate crimes. Anything can be said or done to a white American and it is
not considered politically incorrect.
With Trump and his supporters demonized, under Democrat rule the transition of white Americans into second or third class citizens
will be completed.
How do you access Trump's first term in office? Where was he successful and where he failed?
Trump spent his entire term in office fighting off fake accusations -- Russiagate, Impeachgate, failure to bomb Russia for paying
Taliban to kill American occupiers of Afghanistan, causing Covid by not wearing a mask, and so on and on.
That Trump survived all the false charges shows that he is a real person, a powerful character. Who else could have survived what
Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United States the media is known as "presstitutes"
-- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe. As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I say with complete
confidence that there is no one in the American media today I would have hired. The total absence of integrity in the Western media
is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
Never before used on a large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily
circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without
postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks.
It really seems to me that there would be no democrat majorities in Congress or in so many state legislatures without vote
fraud.
Worse than the fraud available with vote by mail is the voting of people normally who don't bother to vote. Think of how stupid
and uninformed that average American voter is. Now realize how much more stupid and uninformed the non-voter is, only now he votes.
However, the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates
the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will
never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way,
you merely throw his ballot in the trash.
I have little doubt that there have been massive "irregularities", particularly in the so-called battleground states, that
are at play in "stealing" the election.
...The favourite phrase these days is "no evidence of wide spread voter fraud". Let's break that down. Only 6 states have been
challenged for vote fraud. In the big scheme of things, 6 states is not wide spread, even if there is massive vote fraud within
those 6 states. That the vote fraud is not widespread, implies that some vote fraud is acceptable, and that the listener should
ignore it. Last and most importantly, in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony
and affidavits become evidence when supported by physical evidence. An affidavit with a photograph demonstrating the statement
would be evidence.
Another phrase is something like "election officials say they have seen no evidence of voter fraud". I have yet to hear a reporter
challenge the "seen no evidence of " part of the statement, regardless of the subject, by asking if the speaker had looked for
any evidence. They won't, because they know damn well no one has.
That is how the liars operate. Not so different from Rumsfeld's "plausible deniability".
Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable
mail in the lobby under the mailboxes.
The envelopes were mostly addressed to people who had moved out or died. If ballots were sent to these people based on incorrect
voter rolls, then these too would likely have been left sitting on the floor or on a ledge for anyone to take.
It doesn't take a leap of faith to know what a Trump-hating leftist would do when no one is looking. This moral hazard was
intentionally created by Dems, who know that urban dwellers are transient and lean left politically.
Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some
position to mitigate.
Ike's a mystery. Why did he NOT question Harry Truman's commitments to NATO, the UN, and all that rubbish? Ike was a WWII guy.
He knew Americans hated the UN in 1953 as much as they hated the League of Nations after WWI. But he let it all slide and get
bigger.
His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading
tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy.
Well, agree on your points however, on the other side of the ledger, he never understood the stupidity of the Korean war (that
he could have ended) and majorly up-ramped CIA activities in all manner of regime change (bay of pigs anyone?). Almost a direct
path to our foreign policy now (and now domestic policy)
He did deploy the military assistance advisory group to Vietnam in 1955. This is considered the beginning of U.S. involvement
in the war. This allowed the French to moonwalk out the back door leaving us holding the bag. In fairness this was Johnson's war
however. Eisenhower did cut the military budget as a peace dividend to fund interstate system and other domestic projects. In
today political spectrum he would be considered a flaming liberal.
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak
with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies.
What intrigues me is the ultimate political goal of the UN and the WEF when they anticipate a single global government centered
at the UN and the absence of nation-states.
So what is the MIC going to do when there are no existential threats of competing nation-states? Or will the MIC re-engineer
religious wars between the various religious groups, secular and theological? It seems the aspirations of the WEF and its fellow
travellers preclude the occurrence of future armed conflicts.
Of course one needs capitalistic economies to produce the ordnance and materiels for the engineered social factions to war
with each other. Yet if the Greens have their way, there will be no mining period.
More likely is the possibility that none of them actually understand what they are doing. As Nassim Taleb is alleged to have
remarked, 99% of humans are stupid.
The total absence of integrity in the Western media is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
It's because Western media is completely under the control of Jews, the world's foremost End Justifies Means people. The Fourth
Estate has become the world's most powerful Bully Pulpit. There are still a few good ones though, brave souls they are: Kim Strassel
of WSJ, Daniel Larison of The American Conservative , Neil Munro of Breitbart.
The rest are more or less lying scums, including everyone on NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, Fox News (minus
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo), The Economist , and let's not forget the new media: Google, Facebook, Twitter. The
world would be a much better place without any of them.
@Beavertales
-- with either vote flipping on machines or having the totals that paper ballot scanners tabulate adjust via a pre-programmed
algorithm. Many elections have already been stolen this way.
Nancy Pelosi claims that Biden's victory gives the Democrats a "MANDATE" to alter the economy as they see fit with 50.5%.
This proves that Biden will NOT represent everyone – only the left! I have warned that this has been their agenda from day one.
Now, three whistleblowers from the Democratic software company Dominion Voting Systems, alleging that the company's software stole
38 million votes from Trump. There are people claiming that Dominion Voting Systems is linked to Soros, Dianae Finesteing, Clintons,
and Pelosi's husband. I cannot verify any of these allegations so far.
We are at the Rubicon. Civil War is on the other side. There should NEVER be this type of drastic change to the economy
from Capitalism to Marxism on 50.5% of the popular vote. NOBODY should be able to restructure the government and the economy on
less than 2/3rds of the majority. That would be a mandate. Trying to change everything with a claim of 50.5% of the vote will
only signal, like the Dread Scot decision, that there is no solution by rule of law. This is the end of civilization and it will
turn ugly from here because there is no middle ground anymore. As I have warned, historically the left will never tolerate opposition.
Yes, the theft is blatant. But what are you, us, going to do about it? We really can't do much as the Office of the President
Elect requires us to wear masks. For our safety.
"in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony and affidavits become evidence when
supported by physical evidence. " Correct – but they also can become evidence by verbal testimony. ie "I saw the defendant hit
the victim with a rock"
Not only have they stolen the election but when Joe Biden and other democrats claim that President Trump caused the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Americans because of his handling of Covid 19, they are in sane. No world leader could stop the spread
of this respiratory virus. However, Joe Biden and democrats have caused the deaths of hundreds of white people, while whipping
up weak minded people to kill many whites. Biden and the democrats are criminals. Any one who is white, man or woman, that supports
the democratic party is enabling a criminal organization to perpetrate violence on white people, including murder.
Since the article was from a German magazine it's understandable that there is no mention of "the one who shall not be named".
No mention of the people behind the Lawfare group, the same people behind the impeachment, the same people providing financial
and ideological support for the BLM/Antifa, the same people that own the media that spewed lies for 5 years and censored any mention
of the Biden family corruption, no mention of the people behind this Color Revolution, the same people who promoted the mail in
voting and those that managed the narrative for the media on election night to stop Trump's momentum.
For the public consumption the election will be described in vague terms, like this article, blaming special interests and
institutions like the FBI, CIA and MIC without naming names as if an institution, not the oligarchs and chosen pulling the strings,
are somehow Marxist, anti-white or anti-Christian.
The interviewer quotes the Heritage Foundation does anyone even care what they say? The English Tavistock Institute by way
of the CIA which the British molded from the OSS created programs for the Heritage Foundation as well as the Hoover Institute,
MIT, Stanford University, Wharton, Rand etc. These "rightwing think tanks" were created to counter the CIA's "leftwing think tanks"
at Columbia, Berkeley etc. Thank you British Intelligence.
Steve Bannon was just interviewing someone (can't remember his name). Apparently there are about 200 to 300 IT professionals/engineers
working on these so-called "glitches" (not glitches at all) which mysteriously "disappeared" thousands of Trump votes. Then they'd
dump phony Biden votes into the mix. These IT professionals are going to follow the trail.
I've also heard that Dominion Voting Systems played a big part in this scam by using algorithms. One Trump lawyer said that
big revelations are coming.
We're going to have to be patient and just wait.
"The inclination of Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election."
I honestly think it's more like the old established Republicans (corporate bought) want Trump to lose because that is what
their campaign donors want (Big Pharma, Wall Street, etc.) They are part of the elite, and the elite (both the Democrats AND Republicans)
want Trump gone so they can continue their crony capitalist looting. They've got to appear like they're behind Trump, but I don't
think they are. Of course, that's not all Republican representatives.
Sounds like they've been rigging elections for awhile now. I bet they just messed up with Hillary. I think that's why she was
so upset. She had it, but they screwed up and didn't supply enough ballots.
@KenHinventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. next it will be magic carpet
voting. But the votes don't count, cause it is the electoral college that elects the President.
Trump also lost a significant number who did not understand Trump was an Israeli at heart, they thought he was a uncoothed
NYC red blooded American.
As far as white, black or pokadot color or any of the religions ganging up against Trump I don't think that happened, the fall
out into statistically discoverable categories is just that, fall out, not those categories conspiring to vote or not vote one
way or the other.
PCR seems to have trouble seeing a difference between the counting of perfectly proper votes which Pres Trump's post office
delivered late which may or may not be allowed by law which can be determined in court, and fraud like the dead voting or votes
being forged.
The fraud is all so transparent but no one in the power elite seems to give a crap whether the public catches on or not these
days. They know that the entire media which creates the false matrix of contrived "truth" that we all live in will back them to
the hilt because they are actually just one more working part in the grand conspiracy. We all know that when "O'Brian" says 2
+ 2 equals 5 we must all believe it, or at least say we do. We interface with "O'Brian's" minions on a daily basis but we don't
know the ultimate identity of "O'Brian" (in the singular or multiple). Many guesses are made, but they hide that from us fairly
well with the aid of their militaries and "intelligence" agencies (aka secret police in other times and places).
For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped
out Trump's lead.
In a very similar vein, it is the same thing that happened to Bernie Sanders during the primary's. Joe was down and out, and
Bernie was enjoying the lead and then "Bam!" Overnight Joe is back on top.
Well, fool me once,,,,,, .,and blah, blah whatever Bush said .
Dr Roberts has referenced in the interview a UR article that goes into considerable detail about the massive electoral fraud
by the Democrats and their partners. You've obviously not bothered to read it.
You're like one of those MSM hacks who denies electoral fraud without making any attempt to look at the evidence.
@Begemot
And it's almost always a closer race than anyone would have guessed beforehand -- which I also find suspicious. How likely is
it that the majority of presidential elections over the last century were decided by more or less even numbers of voters from
each party, between more or less evenly matched candidates?
Really seems like they've perfected the art of putting on rigged political shows that you can't quite believe in, but don't
have anything really solid to back up your suspicions. It's like the "no evidence of fraud" canard -- anything solid enough to
show obvious manipulation is explained away as the exception, rather than the tip of a very deep iceberg
Like the false accusations about Russia, delegitimizing the presidential election as fraud is turning out to be much ado
about nothing.
Let's review. The Democrats perpetrated the phony 2016 Russian influence fraud, and now the Democrats are perpetrating the
phony 2020 election victory.
The common elements are Democrats perpetrate fraud.
IMO this is a simple remedy to settle the election fraud mess or we will be arguing about this 20 years from now .from the
American Thinker.
The candidates on the ballot must have an opportunity to have observers whom they choose to oversee the entire process so
the candidates are satisfied that they won or lost a free and fair election.
That is not what happened in the 2020 election. That is the single most important and simple fact that needs to be understood
and communicated. The 2020 election was not a free and fair election, because poll-watchers were not allowed to do their essential
job. The 2020 election can still be a free and fair election with a clear winner, whoever that may be, but time is running
out.
In every instance where poll-watchers were not allowed to observe the process, those votes must be recounted. They must
be recounted with poll-watchers from both sides present. If there are votes that cannot be recounted because the envelops were
discarded, those votes must be discarded. Put the blame for this on the officials who decided to count the votes in secret.
Consider it a way to discourage secret vote counts in the future.
The pandemic has not been fearful enough to close liquor stores, and it in should not be used as excuse to remove the poll-watchers
who are essential to a free and fair election. If we must have social distancing, then use cameras.
Certainly, there are other issues with the 2020 election. There may be problems with software, and there are issues like
signature verification and dead people voting. Everything should be considered and examined, but no other issue should distract
from the simple fact that both sides must be able to view the entire process. If one side is not allowed to view the vote-counting,
then that side should be calling it a fraud. We should all be calling it a fraud.
...Trump had control of the Senate, the House and of course the Executive between his inauguration in January of 2017 and the
Midterm Elections of 2018, a total time period of 1 year and 10 months. What did he do during this time? He deregulated financial
services and passed corporate tax cuts.
At the end of the day, being emotionally invested in US elections is no different to being emotionally invested in Keeping
up with the Kardashians , that is to say your life wouldn't be that different if your don't follow either.
The Democrats Have Stolen the Presidential Election
The Deep State Has Stolen the Presidential Election. FIFY. But they have been in control for decades they just don't care who
knows now. They are taking final steps to make their control impervious to attack.
This is the reason that the establishment latched on to the Eisenhowerian bon mot but entirely memory hole Trumman's
far more explicit warning a freaking month after a sitting president is shot like a turkey in Dallas: it white washes CIA and
NSC .
The place to begin, and it's mind-blowing when you think about it this way, is that nothing was resolved on election night.
Not who will take the oath on January 20th. Nor which party will control the Senate. Nor even who will be Speaker and which party
will control the House.
Suffice it to say, a still raging factional struggle has simply moved to a greater degree behind the curtain.
I noted this movie reference on another thread here:
If your father dies, you'll make the deal, Sonny.
-- "The Godfather"
My point being, you're foolish if you ascribe certainty as to outcome at this point.
Being rid of Trump has been as close to a dues ex machina for the establishment as imaginable since he took the oath. This
ineluctable observation elicits no end of foot-stomping by those who assume it necessarily says anything positive about the man.
With every persistent revision of the script they wrote for him, all ending with his political demise at least, Trump has not
just survived but grown stronger. While the Democrats turned our elections into something only seen in a third-world shit hole,
Trump legitimately drew 71M votes from Americans.
That's a lot of air in the balloon. Believe me, filth like Russian mole Brennan may think everything is finished once they
get rid of terrible, awful Trump, but those above his pay grade know better.
Like him or hate him, Trump is the only principal not wholly or largely discredited. He was saved from destruction during his
first term by the Republican base moving to protect him. That was the import of his 90-95% approval among them, destroy him and
you destroy the Republican Party.
Now, despite -- or perhaps, because of -- everything they've done, that base now includes a significant number of Democrats
and independents. Trump is merely a vessel for an American majority attached to this constitutional republic thingie we've got
going.
Don't get lost in the details. This isn't a puzzle you can solve by internet sleuthing. The plan they executed -- to steal
sufficiently to make the outcome inevitable by the morning after the election at the latest -- failed. This was evident early
on Election Day (e.g. fake water main breaks in Atlanta) and necessitated their playing their Fox/AZ card and shutting down the
count at least until they had removed Republican monitors.
"In 22 states, Republicans will hold unified control over the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, giving
the party wide political latitude -- including in states like Florida and Georgia."
"Eleven states will have divided governments in 2021, unchanged from this year: Democratic governors will need to work with
Republican legislators in eight states, and Republican governors will contend with Democratic lawmakers in three."
The Democrats have: Joe Biden, and a slim majority in the House of Representatives which they are almost certain to lose in
two years.
What the Republicans are going to do is everything we hate, but they will pretend they were "forced" to do it by the Democrats
– the Democrats being the minority party.
Who else could have survived what Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United
States the media is known as "presstitutes" -- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe.
Left and right.
(What you small brains do not understand is this.)
Democrats enabling the elite to invest in far east (lower wage costs, higher profits) did abandon the working class in America.
Democrats by this act did throw away the working class as a dirty rug.
Democrats with their TPP exporting most of the production to far east would totally destroy working class in USA. Trump's first
act was to cancel this insanity. Democrats are insanely delusional.
Democrats were left. Left is a party that supports the working people.
So here switch occurred. Democratic party now represent the elite, and Republicans now represent the working people.
(The irony of the fate)
The headline for PCR's article is a prediction, not yet established, and incomplete.
There is an ongoing massive attempt to steal the Presidential election as well as to steal an unknown number of House and Senate
seats, and who knows what else.
The 'game' is still on. Many tens of millions of citizens – actual total unknown but possibly in numbers unprecedented in American
history – voted for Trump. Republican candidates for office generally had strong support, but again, the actual percentage of
support is unknown but presumably larger than now 'recorded'.
There are also the many millions who ardently supported Trump, know that Biden is illegitimate, deeply corrupt, and the precursor
to perils unknown. Their determination and backbone and intelligence will now be tested.
There is the electoral college process; there are the state legislators that have a say in the process; there is the Supreme
Court.
There is also the possibility of pertinent executive orders that mandate transparent processes in the face of, say, apprehended
insurrection via fraudulent voting processes.
There is also the matter of how millions of 'deplorables' with trucks and tractors and firearms and other means to make their
point will react to obvious massive election travesty.
The conjunction of the COVID global scamdemic/plandemic, with crazed Bill Gates and kin lurking in the background with needles,
'peaceful' protesters in many cities setting fires and looting with near impunity, and a mass media that is clearly comprehensively
committed to a demonic degree of dishonesty and manipulation, and lunatic levels of 'identity politics' ideology, are among the
elements setting the stage for what may be an historical watershed.
The American Revolution in the 18th century, against the British Crown's authority, came about after years of simmering anger
and sporadic resistance against British injustice. At some point there was a 'tipping point'. When Germany invaded and occupied
Norway early in the 2nd WW, an effective resistance quickly formed in reaction, where death and torture were the known willing
risk. Two years before, those forming the resistance would have been just going on with their lives.
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants.
Ben Swann explains how the new coalition of EndPartisanship org is working to break the 2 party hold on primary elections,
which currently lock around 50% of voters out of the process.
I am currently watching an interview with SD Governor Kristi Noem, who went on ABC to challenge George Stenopolosus' claim
that there is no fraud in this election. She pointed out that there has been many allegations, including dead people voting in
PA and GA, she says we don't know how widespread this is, but we owe it to the 70+ million people who voted for Trump to investigate
and ensure a clean and fair election. She said we gave Al Gore 37 days to investigate the result in 2000, why aren't we giving
the same to Trump?
She is extremely articulate and sounds intelligent and honest, and what's more courageous to come forward like this. I hope
she runs for president in 2024, I'd vote for her.
Am I the only one who sees something profoundly spiritual happening in front of our eyes?
Yes. In reality, 5% of White men sent Trump packing. That doesn't match the GOP negrophile narrative where "based" Hindustanis
join the emerging conservative coalition to make sure White people can't get affordable healthcare in their own countries, though.
So we'll have to watch you parasites spool up this pedantic "fraud" nonsense until the fat orange zioclown gracelessly gets dragged
out.
Good post. You will gain more insight from this background on the speech and drafting.
Jan 19, 2011 Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance US National Archives
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, known for its warnings about the growing power of the "military-industrial
complex," was nearly two years in the making. This Inside the Vaults video short follows newly discovered papers revealing that
Eisenhower was deeply involved in crafting the speech.
Great article. Thanks. Agree with you about the big stealing being electronic. Trump tweeted out yesterday that over 2 million
votes were stolen this way. For him to say this, they must have evidence.
Dinesh D'Souza said he hopes that when this matter comes before the Supreme Court that they will tackle once and for all what
constitutes a legal vote.
Some pretty big names are involved with this Dominion Voting. It will be interesting to see what Trump's team of IT experts
discover re the use of algorithms to swing the vote.
Why (Oh, why) did Trump had to go? Because Trump is an enema to the Deep State. He was threatening to expose the biggest lie
of the last 100 years – the supposed "liberalism" of US...
The author refers to a body of overwhelmingly persuasive evidence of voter fraud that can be specified and quantified to provide
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, not to mention hands down proof in civil cases requiring only a preponderance
of the evidence to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Democrats' easily documented, elaborate efforts at concealing the vote counting
process by shutting down the counting prior to sneaking truckloads of ballots in the back door is by itself powerful circumstantial
evidence of their guilt. You have no idea what "evidence" means, either in general usage or in its strictly legal sense.
The election cannot be trusted at all, just based on the insane entitled emotional state of the Globalist establishment alone.
The system as-a-whole cannot be trusted, for the same reason. They are actively corrupting it in every way they can, and fully
believe (as a matter of religious conviction) that they are right to do so.
That's one of the Jew/Anglo Puritan Establishment's new catch-phrases. There's also "no evidence" that Joe Biden acted in a
corrupt manner in Ukraine, even though he admitted to it on tape. There's "no evidence" that Big Tech is biased against conservative
plebians, despite their removing conservative plebians' published content arbitrarily and with no State compulsion to do so.
The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious.
This newly discovered legal standard goes beyond "preponderance of the evidence" or even "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
to establish absolute certainty as the standard.
Just the obvious and necessary complement of the Bob Mueller standard for Russian collusion, don't you think -- "could not
(quite) exonerate"? /s
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's forthrightness so they just latched
onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a
frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.) going overwhelmingly Repub
, somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000 votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason.
(Btw, it seems that Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen video about it.)
@Orville
H. Larson out how the winds are blowing. There is nothing good about it.
Why not this:
-- ONLY in-person voting over a 2-day period, a Sat and Sun, with polls being open from 6AM to 9PM both days.
-- Exceptions are the traditional requested absentee ballot where the voter can be authenticated.
-- Paper ballots must be used at the polls and no single box of 'Straight Vote by Party' is offered.
-- Some kind of SIMPLE scanning tabulator could be used of the ballots and with it NOT being connected to the internet.
There is far too much cheating opportunity built into our current system. That's intended, of course. It needs to end!
Because you don't get it. You are missing the big picture. It was well known that these systems had the ability to be hacked
as soon as they were implemented. It is also a well known fact that massive mail in ballots increases the likelihood that corrupt
individuals are more likely to get away with election fraud.
Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed
the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless,
coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters.
Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents
in history.
Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed
the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans
because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of
slavery. Jeremy Powell said today that the economy is dead and will never recover.
The only injustices that Trump gave a damn about were the injustices against himself and his family, and has committed countless
injustices against the entire country and world during his term. Trump is a corrupt narcissist. The facts prove it. Trump is such
a corrupt narcissist that he was willing to destroy the entire economy based on scientific fraud, high crimes, and treason to
use as political cover for his own incompetency which is the most offensive and disgusting diabolical act ever perpetrated on
the entire country.
Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced,
lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others
and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump
says," I really don't know anything about them."
"I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering,
corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp!
Why would anyone vote for him the second time around after a record of pathological incompetency and pathological corruption?
What's to approve of about him? Go ahead, investigate voter fraud it if is permitted, and if it isn't then ask yourselves why
it is that a system that enables election fraud is in place, and ask yourselves who had the ability to change it and, who had
the ability to benefit from it!
The current term "globalization" was originated by Ted Levitt in an article in the Harvard
Business Review in the 80s and taken up by the Reaganites to push for offshoring of factories
to countries with fewer workers rights and environmental concerns. He edited the magazine and
was a professor at Harvard Business School. Those "weirdos" who championed the term were the
corporate and financial behemoths that preferred it as a euphemism for "economic
imperialism"
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 4 2021 1:07 utc | 56
Our nation, right now, is on the cusp of a great earthquake which will change its
arrangement so that the interior will not be beholden to the coastal elites much longer,
who have themselves thrown off the mantle of nationhood in favor of the globalist paradigm
which values nihilistic individualism over all.
So, in short, you're describing capitalism. A capitalist economy favors individualism,
profits over morality, and is mostly centered around the idea of private property as
described by John Locke. This worked wonders in the vast uncharted territories of America in
the 18th and 19th century, when the population of the United States was below 20 million and
they needed to compete, FAST, against agressive european civilizations who looked at them
with envy.
Now that they are 332 millions and counting, that their natural resources are slowly
depleting and that other civilizations have adapted to the previously unknown phenomenon of
the American empire, USans are faced with a crisis in all sectors, including faith. How come
a system that worked so well for you these past 300 years suddenly fails? well, not suddenly,
but realizing that took a while.
Oh, I know!! It must be because of all those treacherous businessmen who traded their
souls and their country for a quick buck! but we need to condemn them without condemning the
whole system, and saying "capitalism sucks" makes us sound like Ivan the Red Commie. What a
pickle. Let's call them "globalists"! so we can rally the nationalists as a bonus and say
it's all because of evil foreigners.
On certain sites, it goes as far as calling "globalists" ... communists. Or Chinese. Or
Russian. Sure, why not, everyone needs their Emmanuel Goldstein.
"Globalism" is a funny name some weirdos invented since the first Wall Street crashes
happened to justify the worst excesses of the current capitalist economic system without
pointing the finger at the real culprits. I say it's funny because it looks like nationalist
clickbait for the 2 minutes of hate everyone in the West is prescribed each day in this
hyper-social Internet.
Sad fact is, "globalists" are run-of-the-mill bosses who decided it was better for their
end-of-year bonuses if they outsourced some or all of their production to cheap chinese
companies, and not have to pay US salaries anymore. That's not globalist, that's called
looking to make a profit in the short term.
Tell me a better term than "globalist" for nationals who are titans of industry who
betray their fellow nationals in the labor force by looking outside their own nation?
A term of rather recent vintage is Labour arbitrage that is substituting less
costly labour for higher costing labour. The driving motive for all offshoring or
externalising labour resources from the home marketplace. Walmart made billions doing this as
does Amazon.
I agree with Lemming's position on this. And I think Nemesis Calling is wrong about what
the term "Globalist" implies. If a "nationalist" is someone who's loyal to a nation, then
isn't a "globalist" someone who is loyal to the whole globe? Humanity today has many massive
problems that are extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to deal with on a purely
national basis. Nuclear weapons, global climate change, pandemic diseases, the potential
threats and benefits of real artificial intelligence, the extinction of so many species,
controlling multinational corporations, the threat of mass starvation, global inequality...
these are all problems which seem to many people to need the whole human species, or the
whole globe, working together to address them.
I think the major reason why many capitalists started calling themselves "globalists" back
in the 1980's was because they saw this was an idea which was becoming increasingly popular,
and they wanted to try and coopt it for their own benefit.
The trouble was that the CEO's who decided it would be personally profitable for them to
ship their companies jobs to low wage countries were not "real" globalists. If they had
really understood what the decisions they were making would do to their countries, or even to
the corporations they were responsible to their shareholders for managing, they might be
accused of being frauds or even traitors. But they probably didn't understand, so it's
probably more accurate to just call them parts of a greedy and shortsighted elite, which was
far too arrogant to realize how countries like China would be able to exploit their
shortsighted folly. They thought they were being so clever about their plans to exploit the
Chinese. But the irony is that a major reason why they underestimated the Chinese is that
they didn't understand that the fact that the Chinese were Marxists meant that the Chinese
had a different and in some ways better understanding of how Capitalism worked than they did.
They never dreamed that the Chinese would be able to make Lenin's prediction that capitalists
would sell them the rope they needed to hang capitalism come true.
"... Imagine for a while that Pompeo and Netanyahu were able to ignite the huge conflict with Iran which they have been trying to do for years. The wider Middle East would become a land of ruins, and on top of that we would have also the corona crisis. It would be the end for the Chinese project One belt One road and a very promising beginning for Trump’s programme of “decoupling” from China. The same could happen if we go to a Greek-Turkish war, the most probable result of which is enormous destruction in both states and also in Cyprus. Given the destructive capacity of the Greek and Turkish weapons and the impossibility of destroying them by a surprise first strike, the two countries, if they go to war, risk going back two or three hundred years. A conflict around Iran, or between Greece and Turkey would also put enormous pressure on Russia. ..."
"... Spreading Chaos is another way of staging world war when you cannot use ‘normal’, ‘frontal’ methods of war. The policy of Trump and his allies contributes greatly to preparing for world war by attacking the very institutions of bourgeois democracy, any kind of national or international rule, by attacking the very principles of Logic, Logos and Science, necessary in order to transform human societies into herds of wild animals, in a sui generis repetition of the Nazi experiment. ..."
"... The way to get Greece and Turkey to war is by sending them ‘false signals’, either encouraging and supporting them, or implying a threat from the other country. Somebody was able to persuade Ankara to down the Russian jet in 2015, which was a case of extreme miscalculation. It is easier to make a miscalculation regarding Greece and Turkey, and there is an enormity of contradictory signals emanating from the US and Israel towards the two capitals. ..."
"... PS. The above article provides a possible explanation of the present Greek-Turkish crisis. A second explanation is that big oil multinationals want to provoke a crisis in order to exploit the hydrocarbons of the region, but we have no serious indications that big reserves really exist and are exploitable economically. A third explanation, not mutually excluded from what we have analyzed, is that third forces are trying to provoke a war in order to overthrow Erdogan and also have all the other consequences we described. ..."
Twenty years ago, I was covering the Munich Security Forum as a journalist and I took an interview from Brent Scawcroft,
National Security Adviser for President Bush (the father). I believe he was one of the men who played a huge role in pushing
Boris Yeltsin to the crisis which culminated into the bombing of the Russian parliament in October 1993, thus opening the way to
the biggest looting in the history of mankind, the so-called Russian privatisations. I asked Scawcroft what the US policy
towards Russia and China should be . He answered: “We need to have better relations with Moscow and Beijing, than they can have
between themselves”.
The way for the Empire to dominate in the Eastern Mediterranean, imposing its pax or pushing for war, is by having better
relations with Athens and Ankara than they can have between themselves. Now they don’t have any at all.
Maidan Square, Kiev, 2014
The plane carrying the three EU Foreign Ministers, the French, the German and the Polish, had just taken off from Kiev when
the agreement they had negotiated for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian crisis collapsed and the carnage began
in the Ukrainian capital. This was followed by the civil war and the unimaginable destruction of European-Russian relations.
The Ukrainian coup was a huge blow to Russia and the Ukraine, which is now in an extremely miserable state, a harbinger of
Nazi militias and mafia groups, but also, indirectly, to Europe, which, destroying its relations with Russia at the behest of
the Americans, is not only ridiculed, but has deprived itself of the possibility of an independent policy, an achievement which
it is now going to ‘complete’ with the Navalny affair, if it leads to the cancelling of the strategic pipeline project
NordStream II.
‘Fuck the EU’ was not only a phrase from Neocon Assistant Secretary of State Nuland to Ambassador Pyatt (then in Kiev, now
in Athens); it was in reality one of the main purposes of the Maidan operation, that is the inauguration chapter of the new Cold
War. Some weeks ago, Mike Pompeo repeated the Nuland coup, by using his influence on the Greek FM Dendias and on the Egyptian
dictator Sissi to blow up the moratorium between Greece and Turkey the German chancellor Merkel had negotiated. ‘Fuck Germany
and its moratoriums’!
The Coming War
The destruction of the Ukraine, Ukrainian-Russian and European-Russian relations was a very big step in the direction of
preparing for world war against Russia and China. This is the central plan that defines many of the individual crises and
episodes around the globe; and if one does not understand this, one cannot understand anything. As for Trump’s friendship with
Russia, we are afraid that it is of no more value than Hitler’s friendship with Stalin or the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
The war with China and Russia is the main project of the extremist, radical wing of the Western capitalist establishment. But
such a war cannot happen easily and it will not take a frontal form as WWI and WWII, because of the existence of nuclear
weapons. But it will take all other possible forms.
Imagine for a while that Pompeo and Netanyahu were able to ignite the huge conflict with Iran which they have been trying
to do for years. The wider Middle East would become a land of ruins, and on top of that we would have also the corona crisis. It
would be the end for the Chinese project One belt One road and a very promising beginning for Trump’s programme of “decoupling”
from China. The same could happen if we go to a Greek-Turkish war, the most probable result of which is enormous destruction in
both states and also in Cyprus. Given the destructive capacity of the Greek and Turkish weapons and the impossibility of
destroying them by a surprise first strike, the two countries, if they go to war, risk going back two or three hundred years. A
conflict around Iran, or between Greece and Turkey would also put enormous pressure on Russia.
Spreading Chaos is another way of staging world war when you cannot use ‘normal’, ‘frontal’ methods of war. The policy of
Trump and his allies contributes greatly to preparing for world war by attacking the very institutions of bourgeois democracy,
any kind of national or international rule, by attacking the very principles of Logic, Logos and Science, necessary in order to
transform human societies into herds of wild animals, in a sui generis repetition of the Nazi experiment.
You cannot wage war on Russia or China by any form of ‘liberal capitalism’. To wage such a huge war you need a totalitarian
regime in the West, and this is the real programme, the historic mission of Trump, Pompeo, Thiel, Netanyahu etc.
The way to get Greece and Turkey to war is by sending them ‘false signals’, either encouraging and supporting them, or
implying a threat from the other country. Somebody was able to persuade Ankara to down the Russian jet in 2015, which was a
case of extreme miscalculation. It is easier to make a miscalculation regarding Greece and Turkey, and there is an enormity of
contradictory signals emanating from the US and Israel towards the two capitals.
For example, a very strange article in the Foreign Affairs magazine states that the red line behind which Ankara
will not be permitted to go is south of Crete. This red light is indirectly a green light for Turkey to go to the east or
south-east of Crete. If Turkey sends its ships there the Greek government will be under tremendous pressure from both public
opinion and the Armed Forces to react. This is not something Foreign Affairs can ignore, making us wonder if in fact some
people want a war between Greece and Turkey to overthrow Erdogan, to weaken Turkey for decades, to attack Chinese projects and
the EU. We could multiply such examples, including Trump’s encouragement of Erdogan. Insofar as the Turkish President does not
want to go to a full rupture with the West, he is better prepared to accept as genuine any encouraging signals from Washington.
But they can be a trap, as happened for example with Milosevich or Sadam.
Russia, NATO and a Greek-Turkish war
The other day a friend told me that a conflict between Greece and Turkey would only harm NATO: only the Russians would
benefit, so it could not happen.
I replied that he was wrong. ‘If you are preparing for a world war, you do not even care so much about NATO. Instead you have
to tear down all the institutions of bourgoies society and of the liberal capitalist order, including the EU, maybe even NATO
itself, because they are not really made for such a war. They are certainly made to contain Russia, but not to play Russian
roulette with the very existence of the world. A world war will not be decided by a Senate, no matter how oligarchic it will be.
For such decisions you need Nero, Caligula, Heliogabalus. Such are Trump, Bolsonaro, Pompeo, Netanyahu and those behind them.
They would certainly prefer a Russia-Turkey conflict and have already tried to provoke it. But it is not easy.
A conflict with Greece is their second best alternative, because Greece has the means to destroy Turkey by destroying itself.
A war between the two countries will destroy them and would set them back 200 or 300 years.
It is doubtful, after all, that Russia would benefit from such a development, even if it would be a blow to NATO. First,
because Moscow would see the destruction of Hellenism, the main strategic ally of Russia in the Mediterranean for a thousand
years. Governments and regimes can change, but losing a nation is another matter.
Second, Moscow will likely see, as a result of a war, a pro-Western dictatorship set up in Ankara. Having contributed to the
destruction of a historic country like Greece, Turkey would not have the slightest future. It would be considered the outcast of
all civilised nations, like Germany after World War II.
And of course, the big victims of the war will be China, with the One Belt, One Road plans and Europe itself.
This is the Chaos Strategy. It remains to be seen whether her opponents also have a strategy or not.
PS. The above article provides a possible explanation of the present Greek-Turkish crisis. A second explanation is that
big oil multinationals want to provoke a crisis in order to exploit the hydrocarbons of the region, but we have no serious
indications that big reserves really exist and are exploitable economically. A third explanation, not mutually excluded from
what we have analyzed, is that third forces are trying to provoke a war in order to overthrow Erdogan and also have all the
other consequences we described.
rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of
the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of
the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too
seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity
Washington has little time for.
Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged
those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to
wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What
were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser
visibility doing in his administration?
I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed
these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent
state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget,
Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.
We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind,
poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned
with appearances.
Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's
nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.
Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a
new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan,
making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.
Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by
publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record
shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem
Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar –a –Lago, and presented
Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the
press pretended it was White House policy all along.
Now We Come to Iran
Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the
United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most
destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the
shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.
Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran
back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to
cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo
sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.
Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military
deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly
chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak
president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold
their tents.
Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is
not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of
this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.
Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a
revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly
likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it
afterward.
Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his
administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now
serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support
him will remain wide shut.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter
@thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his
work via his Patreon site
.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06
A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an
acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is
Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the
administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.
Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51
I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the
assassination of Soleimani.
Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42
Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at
making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's
thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around
the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the
Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the
millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person
in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember
one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not
negotiations, have become the norm
So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were
there at one time.
Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,
Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United
States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:
"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives,
– and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."
***
Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth
the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life
for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.
I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others
who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and
almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! --
Patrick.
Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02
I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration
by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've
had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on
several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than
likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he
wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no
fan of Trump).
Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the
forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of
Independence.
Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19
Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just
been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep
State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what
we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their
Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something
else.
You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His
"negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his
interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is
that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO
is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title.
He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at
war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is
a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a
commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the
question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie
Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?
Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19
One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor
experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family
business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of
employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business
largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.
Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a
bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do
do.
I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the
bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it
was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with
the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in
with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.
PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46
Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.
Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00
Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids
deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures
completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home
water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally,
but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we
are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would
seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .
Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background
– who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody
"liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left
of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does
to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of
"swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the
third go around?
The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real
morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late
Veterans For Peace members in Asheville, North Carolina participated in a Reject Raytheon
Demonstration on Dec. 9th.
"Prior to the county vote on the incentives, a spokesperson for the company said it made $21
billion in sales last year. More than half came from the manufacturing of commercial engines
used for passengers and cargo. He said military engines made up about 20-30 percent of
sales.
"So much of our military hardware gets made here and is sent overseas and used in proxy wars
and in purposes that don't really serve the security of the United States itself," Veterans for
Peace's Gerry Werhan said."
"... The most overrepresented group in Washington, the "hard power primacists," is also the one with the most destructive track record. This is the group that cheers on John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as they trash America's reputation while putting us at greater risk of pointless wars. Only 10% of the respondents belonged to this group, and even among Republicans they make up less than 25%. There is remarkably little popular support for the position that has become the default Republican Party agenda. ..."
"... The EGF survey likewise asked a question about American exceptionalism, but phrased it a bit differently. They asked if America was exceptional for what it had done in the world (20% agreed), exceptional because of what it represented (40%), or not exceptional (38%). While most of these respondents still affirmed some support for the idea, support is declining with each generation. While the president proposes "teaching American exceptionalism" in schools (whatever that might mean in practice), such lessons seem likely to fall on deaf ears. ..."
"... It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a myth of exceptionalism when our institutions are so faulty, our infrastructure so derelict, and our political leaders so inept. If each new generation is more disillusioned than the last with this myth, it is because they have seen how false it is in real life and they have seen how it has been used to rationalize some of the worst policies imaginable. ..."
The American public is increasingly supportive of a foreign policy that is more engaged diplomatically and more restrained in
its use of force. Large majorities want the U.S. to rejoin agreements and institutions that the U.S. has left over the last four
years, but there is also substantial support for reducing America's military footprint in many other parts of the world. Most Americans
don't care for the wrecking of successful agreements, including the nuclear deal with Iran, but many would welcome troop withdrawals
from deployments overseas.
Those are some of the findings from the Eurasia Group Foundation's annual
survey of what Americans think
about U.S. foreign policy and our country's role in the world. There is a major constituency in both parties for a foreign policy
that is less militarized and more involved in constructive international cooperation. This could be the foundation for a broad coalition
in favor of greater restraint, and it shows that most of the public is not interested in maintaining the status quo of militarized
hegemony.
The survey divides the respondents into four groupings based on their answers.
There are the "traditional internationalists" that don't want to reduce U.S. forces overseas and want to remain in international
institutions,
And then there are the "hard power primacists" that have no use for institutions and treaties but want to dominate militarily.
There are the "global ambassadors" that want deeper diplomatic engagement, but also want to reduce military forces overseas
and move away from a militarized U.S. foreign policy.
Finally, there are the respondents that the survey classified as so-called "genuine isolationists." The choice of isolationist
here was unfortunate because even among these respondents the preference is for reduced engagement of all kinds, but not necessarily
the separation from the world that the isolationist label implies. When push comes to shove, almost no one is a "genuine isolationist"
in this country or anywhere else, and a more extensive survey might be able to tease out how these "isolationists" really think
the U.S. should act in the world.
Out of these four, the "global ambassadors" made up the largest contingent: "The most popular position was that of the Global
Ambassadors, who support active diplomacy and participation in international institutions, trade and treaties but oppose global military
primacy." It would be fair to say that this position is closest to the views held by advocates of restraint. According to the survey,
38% of respondents fit this description, and they were pretty evenly distributed between different political affiliations. 40% of
Democrats gave answers that put them in this group, and the same was true for 32% of Republicans.
There is a clear majority that doesn't support a strategy of primacy. As the report notes, "When "engagement" is split into military
and non-military components, only three in ten Americans favor liberal hegemony." Between the "global ambassadors" and so-called
"genuine isolationists," those opposed to primacy to one degree or another made up almost 60% of the total. These are potentially
huge blocs of voters that prefer a more peaceful, less interventionist foreign policy, and they are woefully underrepresented in
Washington today. This is a large audience that would seem to be receptive to what advocates of restraint have to say, and so we
need to find more ways to reach them.
The most overrepresented group in Washington, the "hard power primacists," is also the one with the most destructive track
record. This is the group that cheers on John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as they trash America's reputation while putting us at greater
risk of pointless wars. Only 10% of the respondents belonged to this group, and even among Republicans they make up less than 25%.
There is remarkably little popular support for the position that has become the default Republican Party agenda.
There is more popular support for bringing U.S. forces home from all over than there is for keeping them there. 44% say that the
U.S. should decrease the number of troops it has in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and they also say that the U.S. should reduce
its commitments to other countries in these regions. Only 31% were in favor of the status quo or an increase in troop levels. This
is consistent with the findings of other surveys, including the new
poll from the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which found that 57% approved of the announced troop withdrawal from Germany, and another 16%
wanted full withdrawal of all of the remaining troops.
One of the other interesting results that the Chicago Council
survey found is the growing partisan
gap over the question of "American exceptionalism." 80% Republicans are in agreement with the definition of exceptionalism the survey
provided (the U.S. has a "unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world"), and only 35% of Democrats held the
same view. It is possible that this gap is exaggerated by the fact that Democrats seem to have soured on the idea during Trump's
presidency, and the numbers may go up again in the future, but there seems to be something more significant going on. Insofar as
"American exceptionalism" has been turned into a motto for excusing U.S. rogue behavior in the world, it has become an increasingly
loaded phrase that provokes strong reactions in both directions. The experience of the last twenty years would also give many people
good reasons to doubt that the U.S. deserves to be called the greatest country.
The EGF survey likewise asked a question about American exceptionalism, but phrased it a bit differently. They asked if America
was exceptional for what it had done in the world (20% agreed), exceptional because of what it represented (40%), or not exceptional
(38%). While most of these respondents still affirmed some support for the idea, support is declining with each generation. While
the president proposes "teaching American exceptionalism" in schools (whatever that might mean in practice), such lessons seem likely
to fall on deaf ears.
It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a myth of exceptionalism when our institutions are so faulty, our infrastructure
so derelict, and our political leaders so inept. If each new generation is more disillusioned than the last with this myth, it is
because they have seen how false it is in real life and they have seen how it has been used to rationalize some of the worst policies
imaginable.
Probably the most discouraging result in the EGF survey came in response to a question about war powers. There is a large majority
that thinks that Congress has to authorize the use of force first, and that is something that advocates of restraint can build on,
but it is disturbing that so many would support presidential overreach in matters of war. When asked if the president needed Congressional
authorization before ordering military action abroad, 26% said that he didn't. While this is a distinctly minority view, it was supported
by half of the Republican respondents, and it shows that roughly a quarter of the public holds an important part of the Constitution
in contempt. When such a large group endorses illegal presidential warmaking, it is another sign that our political culture has been
badly corrupted by decades of war and arbitrary presidential power grabs. The failure to prevent previous illegal wars and the failure
to hold presidents accountable for trampling on the Constitution have paved the way for this.
Foreign policy tends to be a low priority for most voters, and few use these issues to determine their voting decisions, but public
opinion still has to be kept in mind in any foreign policy debate. Most Americans are not paying close attention to what the government
is doing in the world, but there are limits to what they will tolerate. The public also has fairly clear preferences for greater
international cooperation without the unnecessary burdens of endless wars and excessive military commitments around the world. There
is an opening here for a prudential and restrained internationalism that draws support from across the political spectrum, but to
take advantage of that will require organizing these disparate groups of Americans to achieve greater influence in both parties.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo
blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book
Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene,
and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster,
PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Foreign policy tends to be a low priority for most voters, and few use these issues to determine their voting decisions
Unfortunately, I think this is the most important sentence in the article. The fact of the matter is FP stuff is a very low
priority for most Americans and "supporting the troops" is often conflated with money for the pentagon.
Worst of all, Americans will oppose attacking Country X until the president says "We need to attack Country X" and then they
are all for it. I mean, during all of 2017 half the country suddenly knew we absolutely needed to attack North Korea.
I agree with Tom. These polls rarely mean much on any topic, and when it's as low priority as foreign affairs, there's even
less significance. There is some brave talk among Democrats about cutting defense spending, but in the past both parties have
been happy to give the Pentagon as much, and frequently more, than it wants. And the military is devoted above all else to maintaining
its global presence, so that all its toys can be given at least a veneer of purpose. Trump, with all his disgusting bluster, is
clearly more risk averse than Obama, who stupidly cost his party the presidency by trying to play the hero in Libya. I'm am (pretty)
sure that Biden will continue this restraint, but on the other hand his administration will almost surely be stocked with Wilsonian
interventionists, who have learned nothing and forgot plenty.
The polls have been consistent for a long time now. But this is America - what the elites want, the elites get and since when
did the voters start to matter?
Agreed. But to be precise, the "elites" in this particular case are nothing other than the military brass, the military contractors,
and the senators/reps they've purchased. Well funded and unbelievably well-placed to influence/leverage/etc. whoever is the President.
And what powerful/wealthy interests are lobbying on the other side? Few, if any.
The building block is the UN Charter and agreed upon International Law. but while Russia 7 China & others would love to have
those treaties respected, the US Gob wants to follow the "rules based order". Moon of Alabama and others talk about these very
fundamental issues, and how the West in fact has lost all its legal and moral ground and became in fact Mordor ru by Sauron:
The best thing that could happen to tilt American foreign policy more in the direction of restraint would be a consistently
populist, in the true sense, political force. Interventionist foreign policy is a dream world and plaything of elites, for elite
gain.
Right now you have way too many peace-inclined left wing people fighting peace-inclined right wing people, in a clear divide
and conquer setup. Left and right identity politics are being used to preserve a decadent status quo a bit longer, including in
foreign policy.
The war in Afghanistan, now in its 19th year, is the longest and most intractable of America's forever wars. There are now
American
soldiers fighting in Afghanistan
who were born after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the ostensible
casus
belli
. The American public has long ago grown tired of the war. A
YouGov
poll
conducted in July of 2020 showed that 46 percent of Americans strongly supported withdrawing troops from Afghanistan,
with another 30 percent saying they "somewhat" approved of troop withdrawal.
But this 76 percent majority is deceptive. Given the fact that America has a volunteer army and American casualties in
Afghanistan remain sporadic, this is not an issue that the public is passionate about. An inchoate dissatisfaction is compatible
either with disengagement or just a lack of interest. Conversely, those in the national security establishment who do
passionately support the war are able to thwart political leaders who want a drawdown. Under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump,
presidential efforts to disengage from Afghanistan and the larger Middle East were met with resistance from a foreign policy
elite that sees any withdrawal as a humiliating defeat.
Trump tried to resolve the contradiction between his desire to remove troops and the foreign policy elite's commitment to the
Afghan war by
loosening
the rules of war
. The thinking of the Trump administration was that by unleashing the military and intelligence agencies, it
could subdue the Taliban -- thus preparing the way for a drawdown of troops. Special priority was given to CIA-run covert operations
using Afghan paramilitaries, with the belief that this would lead to a more sustainable war that didn't require American soldiers
to participate in fighting.
A report in
The Intercept
, written by reporter Andrew Quilty,
documents
the horrifying consequences
of this policy: Afghan paramilitary units, known as 01 and 02, have acted as death squads,
launching raids against civilians that have turned into massacres. Many of these raids have attacked religious schools, the
famous madrassas, leading to the death of children as young as 8 years old.
According to Quilty, "Residents from four districts in Wardak -- Nerkh, Chak, Sayedabad, and Daymirdad -- spoke of a string of
massacres, executions, mutilation, forced disappearances, attacks on medical facilities, and airstrikes targeting structures
known to house civilians. The victims, according to these residents, were rarely Taliban. Yet the Afghan unit and its American
masters have never been publicly held accountable by either the Afghan or U.S. governments."
These raids all involve Afghan paramilitaries who are outside the control of the Afghan government and working in conjunction
with American handlers who provide high-tech aid and direction, Quilty reports.
The units' American CIA advisers go by pseudonyms or call signs rather than
names.They not only train Afghan unit members, but also choose their targets, which the Americans call "jackpots"; issue
detailed pre-mission briefings; and accompany Afghan paramilitaries on the ground during raids. The Afghans and Americans are
ferried to remote villages at night by American helicopters, and American assault aircraft hover overhead while they conduct
their raids, providing lethal firepower that is sometimes directed at health clinics, madrassa dormitories, or civilian homes.
Despite providing detailed accounts of American-led war crimes,
The
Intercept
's report has been met with near-silence from the American media. Jake Tapper of CNN
retweeted
the article
, but otherwise there is little indication that the American media cares.
As
Intercept
reporter Ryan Grim
notes
,
"It's been two days since this story was published, and the mainstream media has been largely silent on it. Imagine if the media
treated the My Lai massacre this way." (In fact, the mainstream press sat on whistleblower Ron Ridenhour's warnings about My Lai
for a year before Seymour Hersh and the scruffy Dispatch News Service finally broke the silence.)
Grim also suggested that the Biden administration might want to bring justice to the perpetrators of these alleged war crimes.
"One of the most outspoken proponents of bringing a fine legal eye to war has been Avril Haines, who will be Joe Biden's Director
of National Intelligence," Grim observes. "She'll have the authority and the ability to discover who in the CIA was involved in
these operations, and bring them to justice."
This is a forlorn hope given the Obama administration's
failure
to go after war crimes
committed by the CIA under George W. Bush. Further, Biden himself is ambiguous on Afghanistan in a way
that calls to mind Trump himself.
As Quincy Institute president Andrew Bacevich
noted
in
The
Nation
earlier this month, Biden "wants to have it both ways" on the Afghan war. Biden will occasionally say, "These
'forever wars' have to end," but he will also say that America needs to keep a contingent of forces in Afghanistan. As Bacevich
observes, "Biden proposes to declare that the longest war in US history has ended, while simultaneously underwriting its
perpetuation." Biden's support for a light military footprint could very easily lead him to the same position as Trump: using
covert CIA operations to maintain American power in Afghanistan with minimal use of uniformed troops. This is a recipe for more
massacres.
Writing in
The Washington Post
last month, veteran Afghanistan
analyst Carter Malkasian
made
a compelling case
that the United States is facing a "stark choice" between "complete withdrawal by May or keeping 2,500
troops in place indefinitely to conduct counterterrorism operations and to try to prevent the collapse of the Afghan government.
There's no doubt that withdrawal will spell the end of the Afghan government that the United States has supported for 19 years."
Malkasian makes clear that the counterterrorism operations would merely be an exercise of staving off defeat, with no prospect of
an end to the war. Given the enormous moral costs of this counterterrorism, unflinchingly described by
The
Intercept
, the argument for complete withdrawal becomes stronger.
It's likely that Biden will continue the policy of previous presidents of kicking the can down the road by using covert CIA
operators to fend off defeat. But Americans should have no illusions: That means perpetuation of horrific war crimes in a
conflict that cannot be won.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is ..."
The upcoming year should be interesting. The Establishment "Deep State" has won a major
victory in the United States with the election of Joe Biden as president. What remains to be
seen is whether or not there will be significant bloodletting as a consequence, revenge for the
presumed misdeeds that constituted the core legacy of four years of Donald J. Trump as chief
executive. Many in the Democratic Party harbor deep resentments that go back to the election of
2016, which spawned the myth that foreign interference by the Russians was responsible for the
upset victory by the GOP candidate. Even at this distance, few if any Democrats are willing to
admit that Hillary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate whose condescension towards whole
categories of voters ultimately inspired many "undecideds" to vote against her.
Indeed, Trump came closer to repeating his improbable victory in 2020 than anyone would have
predicted and the stench of possible widespread fraud continues to hang over the result. Donald
Trump entered office with a pledge to "drain the swamp," something that he found more difficult
to actually do rather than just talk about doing. The Democrats will surely now work hard to
methodically eliminate all political appointees in the vast bureaucracy guilty of Trumpism.
That replacement of bureaucrats is referred to as the "spoils systems" and it is to be
expected, but there is something more sinister in the works with leading Democrats and some
journalists calling for heads to roll, metaphorically to be sure but with real impact on the
lives of those who supported the losing side. The Washington Post 's resident
Trump-hating Zionist Jennifer Rubin summed it up nicely in a tweet three days after the
election, posting "Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the
will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a
corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into 'polite' society. We have a
list."
And Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has been even more explicit,
tweeting a demand to create a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." The commission borrows
the name and would be modeled on the organization set up in South Africa after the fall of the
apartheid government and the establishment of majority black rule, an exercise in attempted
democratization that has nevertheless failed to put an end to extremely high levels of
corruption and communal violence in the country.
Reich's objective is not limited to punishing the Trump White House's top officials who may
have promoted policies considered anathema by the incoming Democratic administration. He has
also tweeted "When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It
would erase Trump's lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every
official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this
catastrophe." The Reich proposal would potentially mean punishing thousands of otherwise
innocent individuals who had little influence over what happened during the past four years.
"Enabled" covers a lot of ground, and is prone to devolve into something like a witch hunt.
One Reich supporter wrote
in defense of the proposal "As long as unresolved historic injustices continue to fester in
the world, there will be a demand for truth commissions" and there have been numerous comments
on social media sites like Facebook insisting that "something be done" about the "deplorables"
who voted for and supported Trump. Interestingly, even though the comments constitute actual
threats, Facebook has not deleted them, unlike the elimination of posts that run afoul of the
censors by questioning the validity of the election or challenging conventional wisdom on
COVID-19.
Another commenter on twitter agreed with Reich, though complaining "But it doesn't go far
enough, clearly. Trump's assets and those of his voters should be seized by the state through
legislation and distributed to those he's harmed as reparations. Surely that's the only way to
heal our nation. Land of the free!" And finally, still another cheerleader enthused "Robert
you're right. And after we win we'll come for you all we're pretty much over trying to share a
country with you anyway. Four years ago I thought you were people with bad ideas. I was wrong:
YOU'RE BAD PEOPLE."
To be sure, Trump invited much of the hostile response to what he represents when he held
rallies where supporters called out Hillary Clinton with chants of "Lock her up!" So the anger
is there on both sides and momentum is building not just to replace or ignore Trump's
associates and his supporters, but to punish them for their alleged inability to comprehend the
many benefits derived from Democratic Party rule. As no mechanism actually exists to enable the
new regime to punish supporters of the previous administration, unless they have actually
committed a crime, one suspects the process of purging the bureaucracy and voters rolls will
pretty much be improvised while Biden and Harris get settled in.
Donald Trump also does not help either himself or the cause he represents. His insults and
abusive language invite hostility, having his tweets turn allies into enemies and making
friends of the "revolution" that he represents wish that he would just shut up. Current media
reports suggesting that he might not
vacate the White House on January 20 th as he continues to be convinced that he
won invite a nasty response from the Democrats. Ex-president Barack Obama
has warned , possibly in jest, that Trump might need to be removed forcibly by Navy
SEALS.
And, of course, violence could beget violence. If denigration of Trump supporters followed
by a real purge does take place it will impact on the tens of millions of voters who still
believe President Trump should have won re-election but for fraud. They are ready for a fight,
and not necessarily limited to the metaphoric. As I said in the beginning, it could be an
interesting year here in America.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email isinform@cnionline.org
To be sure, Trump invited much of the hostile response to what he represents when he
held rallies where supporters called out Hillary Clinton with chants of "Lock her
up!"
So it's Trump's fault – not for anything he has said or done, but for what his
supporters have said.
Indeed, Trump came closer to repeating his improbable victory in 2020 than anyone would
have predicted and the stench of possible widespread fraud continues to hang over the
result.
I could continue, but won't. Even when criticising the Democrats, his hostility towards
Trump and his supporters never lets up. Any dispassionate observer can see that widespread
electoral fraud was actual and likely swung the election Biden's way. Even honest leftist
observers agree. Giraldi should have mentioned this, but didn't. Having perpetrated it once,
the Democrats will do it again. The likelihood is that there will be no fair elections in
future. So the Democrats will have the time to enforce their revenge agenda in perpetuity.
Again Giraldi fails to mention this.
Donald Trump entered office with a pledge to "drain the swamp," something that he found
more difficult to actually do rather than just talk about doing.
Especially when Trump himself hired nothing but nevertrumpers and swamp rats and
listened to his know-nothing rat-in-law.
(Didn't this guy have a tv show for 13 years about hiring the best people?)
It's secession time, has been for years before Orange Golfbag. Don't worry about whether
the federal mafia approves of the parting of ways, their new scamulus includes $300,000,000
to bring in more rapefugees aka your replacements.
"... USAID led at that time by someone named Rajiv Khan, I think it was, and directed by Hill, comandeered the few landing spots at the airport for themselves preventing planes carrying Actual Aid -- you know, food, clothing, meds -- from landing and unloading. ..."
"... I have friends who lived in Haiti at the time and years after the disaster only 6 new residences had been built and the promised factories? As far as I know, never did get built. ..."
"... USAID seems to be about anything but AID. ..."
"... When pressed about the lack of progress made in the (housing) rebuilding efforts, including inabilities to provide shelter, Secretary of State Clinton said "Those who expect progress immediately are unrealistic and doing a disservice to the many people who are working so hard. ..."
USAID led at that time by someone named Rajiv Khan, I think it was, and directed by Hill,
comandeered the few landing spots at the airport for themselves preventing planes carrying
Actual Aid -- you know, food, clothing, meds -- from landing and unloading.
Then Bill was named "Ambassador to Haiti" and the situation Never improved.
I have friends who lived in Haiti at the time and years after the disaster only 6 new
residences had been built and the promised factories? As far as I know, never did get
built.
good example! I vote Power and Sunstein to head USAID! i was a bit more than surprised
that ann garrison never mentioned it's a CIA cut-out, to say the truth.
on edit: ach; you'd meant Bill Fuck over haiti Clinton!
' F*cking the Haitian 99%: Another Clinton Family Project ', October
27, 2015 by wendyedavis (longish, but this key excerpt)
"Sure, Bill and Hill love sweatshop industrial complexes (from nacla.org) more than houses
for Haiti, and love HELP™ (comically ironic acronym):
"On September 20, Haitian prime minister Jean-Marc Bellerive, U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, and the World Bank's International Finance Corporation announced their
partnership with the South Korean garment firm Sae-A Trading Company to establish an
industrial park that will create 10,000 garment assembly jobs in Haiti. Without a doubt,
earthquake-ravaged Haiti needs jobs, mainly to provide the country's 1.3 million homeless
with the means necessary to rebuild their destroyed homes.
While little progress has been made on Haiti's immense housing needs since the January 12
earthquake, Clinton assured the investing public that factory development was moving full
steam ahead. These 10,000 jobs, she assured critics "are not just any jobs. These are good
jobs with fair pay that adhere to international labor standards, . . . Hait
Influential Russian senator Klimov accuses foreign spooks of helping to organize weekend
protests in support of Navalny
READ MORE: With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from
'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry
Putin says American presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to Moscow's interests, rubbishes
claims of 'Russian bounties to Taliban'
