Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
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

Relentless militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite

As large part of the US GDP (financial services part) is fake,
 the current level of military expenses can bankrupt the country

News Media-Military-Industrial Complex Recommended Links Neoconservatism as an attack dog of neoliberalism Syria civil war Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA National Security State American Exceptionalism
New American Militarism American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Predator state Hillary wet kiss with neocons Anatol Leiven on American Messianism "Fuck the EU": neocons show EU its real place How Dystopian Secrecy Contributes to Clueless Wars Wolfowitz Doctrine
War is Racket Libertarian Philosophy Populism Non-Interventionism Paleoconservatism Color revolutions Purple color revolution against Trump Military keysianism
Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living  War is a Racket - Incredible Essay by General Smedley Butler Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization The Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum Homepage Machiavellism Neoconservatism as an attack dog of neoliberalism    
Obama: a yet another Neocon Madeleine Albright as a precursor of Hillary Clinton Samantha Power Robert Kagan Big Uncle is Watching You John Boyd Humor Etc

War . . . the lie, about war, about ourselves, is imploding our democracy

By Chris Hedges
Online Journal Guest Writer

It is impossible to understand the current wave of the US militarism without understanding neoliberalism and, especially, Neoconservatism -- the dominant force in the US foreign policy since Reagan.

From Wikipedia

Militarism - Wikipedia

Militarism is the belief or the desire of a fascist government or a people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests; examples of militarist states include North Korea, the United States of America, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, as well as most Imperial states, such as the Roman Empire.[1]

It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state"[2] (see also: stratocracy and military junta).

Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of several nations throughout history.

Jingoism - Wikipedia

Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.[1] Jingoism also refers to a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others—an extreme type of nationalism.

June 17, 2005  | DemocracyRising.US

The vanquished know war. They see through the empty jingoism of those who use the abstract words of glory, honor, and patriotism to mask the cries of the wounded, the senseless killing, war profiteering, and chest-pounding grief. They know the lies the victors often do not acknowledge, the lies covered up in stately war memorials and mythic war narratives, filled with words of courage and comradeship. They know the lies that permeate the thick, self-important memoirs by amoral statesmen who make wars but do not know war.

The vanquished know the essence of war—death. They grasp that war is necrophilia. They see that war is a state of almost pure sin with its goals of hatred and destruction. They know how war fosters alienation, leads inevitably to nihilism, and is a turning away from the sanctity and preservation of life. All other narratives about war too easily fall prey to the allure and seductiveness of violence, as well as the attraction of the godlike power that comes with the license to kill with impunity.

But the words of the vanquished come later, sometimes long after the war, when grown men and women unpack the suffering they endured as children, what it was like to see their mother or father killed or taken away, or what it was like to lose their homes, their community, their security, and be discarded as human refuse. But by then few listen. The truth about war comes out, but usually too late. We are assured by the war-makers that these stories have no bearing on the glorious violent enterprise the nation is about to inaugurate. And, lapping up the myth of war and its sense of empowerment, we prefer not to look.

We see the war in Iraq only through the distorted lens of the occupiers. The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency, one I have myself felt, to protect those who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the unit and are, in effect, captives. They have no relationships with the occupied, essential to all balanced reporting of conflicts, but only with the Marines and soldiers who drive through desolate mud-walled towns and pump grenades and machine-gun bullets into houses, leaving scores of nameless dead and wounded in their wake. The reporters admire and laud these fighters for their physical courage. They feel protected as well by the jet fighters and heavy artillery and throaty rattle of machine guns. And the reporting, even among those who struggle to keep some distance, usually descends into a shameful cheerleading.

There is no more candor in Iraq or Afghanistan than there was in Vietnam, but in the age of live satellite feeds the military has perfected the appearance of candor. What we are fed is the myth of war. For the myth of war, the myth of glory and honor sells newspapers and boosts ratings, real war reporting does not. Ask the grieving parents of Pat Tillman. Nearly every embedded war correspondent sees his or her mission as sustaining civilian and army morale. This is what passes for coverage on FOX, MSNBC or CNN. In wartime, as Senator Hiram Johnson reminded us in 1917, "truth is the first casualty."

All our knowledge of the war in Iraq has to be viewed as lacking the sweep and depth that will come one day, perhaps years from now, when a small Iraqi boy or girl reaches adulthood and unfolds for us the sad and tragic story of the invasion and bloody occupation of their nation.

I have spent most of my adult life in war. I began two decades ago covering wars in Central America, where I spent five years, then the Middle East, where I spent seven, and the Balkans where I covered the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. My life has been marred, let me say deformed, by the organized industrial violence that year after year was an intimate part of my existence. I have watched young men bleed to death on lonely Central American dirt roads and cobblestone squares in Sarajevo. I have looked into the eyes of mothers, kneeling over the lifeless and mutilated bodies of their children. I have stood in warehouses with rows of corpses, including children, and breathed death into my lungs. I carry within me the ghosts of those I worked with, my comrades, now gone.

I have felt the attraction of violence. I know its seductiveness, excitement and the powerful addictive narcotic it can become. The young soldiers, trained well enough to be disciplined but encouraged to maintain their naive adolescent belief in invulnerability, have in wartime more power at their fingertips than they will ever have again. They catapult from being minimum wage employees at places like Burger King, facing a life of dead-end jobs with little hope of health insurance and adequate benefits, to being part of, in the words of the Marines, "the greatest fighting force on the face of the earth." The disparity between what they were and what they have become is breathtaking and intoxicating. This intoxication is only heightened in wartime when all taboos are broken. Murder goes unpunished and often rewarded. The thrill of destruction fills their days with wild adrenaline highs, strange grotesque landscapes that are hallucinogenic, all accompanied by a sense of purpose and comradeship, overpowers the alienation many left behind. They become accustomed to killing, carrying out acts of slaughter with no more forethought than they take to relieve themselves. And the abuses committed against the helpless prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are not aberrations but the real face of war. In wartime all human beings become objects, objects either to gratify or destroy or both. And almost no one is immune. The contagion of the crowd sees to that.

"Force," Simon Weil wrote, "is as pitiless to the man who possess it, or thinks he does, as it is to his victim. The second it crushes; the first it intoxicates."

This myth, the lie, about war, about ourselves, is imploding our democracy. We shun introspection and self-criticism. We ignore truth, to embrace the strange, disquieting certitude and hubris offered by the radical Christian Right. These radical Christians draw almost exclusively from the book of Revelation, the only time in the Gospels where Jesus sanctions violence, peddling a vision of Christ as the head of a great and murderous army of heavenly avengers. They rarely speak about Christ's message of love, forgiveness and compassion. They relish the cataclysmic destruction that will befall unbelievers, including those such as myself, whom they dismiss as "nominal Christians." They divide the world between good and evil, between those anointed to act as agents of God and those who act as agents of Satan. The cult of masculinity and esthetic of violence pervades their ideology. Feminism and homosexuality are forces, believers are told, that have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian Right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Anti-Christ, attacking hypocrites and castigating the corrupt. The language is one not only of exclusion, hatred and fear, but a call for apocalyptic violence, in short the language of war.

As the war grinds forward, as we sink into a morass of our own creation, as our press and political opposition, and yes even our great research universities, remain complacent and passive, as we refuse to confront the forces that have crippled us outside our gates and are working to cripple us within, the ideology of the Christian Right, so intertwined with intolerance and force, will become the way we speak not only to others but among ourselves.

In war, we always deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience—maybe even consciousness—for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war's enticement, to find moral courage, can be self-destructive.

The attacks on the World Trade Center illustrate that those who oppose us, rather than coming from another moral universe, have been schooled well in modern warfare. The dramatic explosions, the fireballs, the victims plummeting to their deaths, the collapse of the towers in Manhattan, were straight out of Hollywood. Where else, but from the industrialized world, did the suicide bombers learn that huge explosions and death above a city skyline are a peculiar and effective form of communication? They have mastered the language we have taught them. They understand that the use of indiscriminate violence against innocents is a way to make a statement. We leave the same calling cards. We delivered such incendiary messages in Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who in the summer of 1965 defined the bombing raids that would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians north of Saigon as a means of communication to the Communist regime in Hanoi.

The most powerful anti-war testaments, of war and what war does to us, are those that eschew images of combat. It is the suffering of the veteran whose body and mind are changed forever because he or she served a nation that sacrificed them, the suffering of families and children caught up in the unforgiving maw of war, which begin to tell the story of war. But we are not allowed to see dead bodies, at least of our own soldiers, nor do we see the wounds that forever mark a life, the wounds that leave faces and bodies horribly disfigured by burns or shrapnel. We never watch the agony of the dying. War is made palatable. It is sanitized. We are allowed to taste war's perverse thrill, but spared from seeing war's consequences. The wounded and the dead are swiftly carted offstage. And for this I blame the press, which willingly hides from us the effects of bullets, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, which sat at the feet of those who lied to make this war possible and dutifully reported these lies and called it journalism.

War is always about this betrayal. It is about the betrayal of the young by the old, idealists by cynics and finally soldiers by politicians. Those who pay the price, those who are maimed forever by war, however, are crumpled up and thrown away. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they bring is too painful for us to hear. We prefer the myth of war, the myth of glory, honor, patriotism and heroism, words that in the terror and brutality of combat are empty, meaningless and obscene.

We are losing the war in Iraq. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are pitiless to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront the lies and hubris told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag-waving, cross-bearing versions of the Taliban, we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become them.

Chris Hedges has been a war reporter for 15 years most recently for the New York Times. He is author of "What Every person Should Know About War," a book that offers a critical lesson in the dangerous realities of war. He's also author of "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning."

War as a natural state of the USA since 1945


"...These rules have pushed the United States to a state of perpetual war. With enemies supposedly everywhere, the pursuit of security has become open-ended. "
"...One is reminded of John Winthrop, who, in 1630, told the future residents of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." Over subsequent decades, Winthrop's sermon became the American mission, fired by self-righteousness and fueled by self-confidence. From that mission emerged the idea of Manifest Destiny -- American ideals should spread across the continent and around the globe. Along the way, Americans lost sight of what Winthrop actually meant. His words were both inspiration and warning: Aspire to greatness, but remain honorable. Power lies in virtue. Winthrop envisaged a shining beacon, worthy of emulation. He saw no need to come down from the hill and ram ideals down the throats of the recalcitrant. "
"...Back in 1963, the Kennedy administration was faced with a steadily disintegrating situation in Vietnam. At a turbulent cabinet meeting, Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked: If the situation is so dire, why not withdraw? Arthur Schlesinger, present at the meeting, noted how "the question hovered for a moment, then died away." It was "a hopelessly alien thought in a field of unexplored assumptions and entrenched convictions." The Washington rules kept the United States on a steady course toward disaster. "
"...Barack Obama once promised that change was coming, but then quickly adhered to the old rules by escalating an unwinnable and certainly unaffordable war in Afghanistan. Failures, as Steffens hoped, have been illuminating, but after each flash of light, darkness has prevailed. "

[Neocons] advocate permanent war for permanent peace

Professor Basevich

 

The foreign policy of the USA since the dissolution of the USSR was and is "open militarism". Recently  John Quiggin  tried to define militarism is came to the following definition (crookedtimber.org):

100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative. Wikipedia offers a definition of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in nearly every country in the world.

Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national interests

This phenomenon of  New American Militarism was well analyzed by Professor Bacevich (who is a former colonel of the US army). Bacevich's book  Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War  describe the "sacred trinity" of:

 Professor Bacevich shows that neocons dominate the US foreign policy regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US in the only country uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and beyond that might have taken the USA into periods of unprecedented peace, instead of numerous conflicts.

Bacevich scores a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive posture of nearly perpetual war. These assumptions take the form of the "credo" -- which holds that the United States has the unique responsibility to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and the supporting "trinity" of requirements for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism.

In other words they advocate permanent war for permanent peace. Lessons that the author shows President Obama is clearly in the midst of learning, using a modified sacred trinity. Written in engaging prose, his book Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War is an excellent peace of research with sections that some may find very troubling. Here is the summary:

UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper CXXXVII: September 27, 2010, 7:00 p.m. 

Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War (New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company, August 2010).

Thesis

The Washington consensus on national security policy that constitutes convention wisdom in American foreign policy began with the Cold War and survived, remarkably, the Vietnam War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, no longer serves American interests, but the failure of the Obama administration to alter it shows that change can only come from the American people.

Introduction: Slow Learner

The author's faith in orthodoxy began to crumble when visiting the BrandenburgGate in Berlin in the winter of 1990-1991(1-4). In October 1990 a visit to Jenarevealed the backwardness of EastGermany (4-6). During his years in the Army, Bacevich had kept down doubts; after the end of the Cold War he retired, and his loss of status freed him to educate himself (6-10).

"George W.Bush's decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 pushed me fully into opposition" (10). "This book aims to take stock of conventional wisdom" (11). The past 60 years of American history shows continuity: a symbiotic "credo" (formulated by Henry Luce in 1941 as the "American Century") and a "sacred trinity" ("the minimum essentials of international peace and order require the United States to maintain a global military presence, to configure its forces for global power projection, and to counter existing or anticipated threats by relying on a policy of  global interventionism") together define "the rules to which Washington adheres" (11-15).

In this book, "Washington" refers to the upper echelons of the three branches of government, the main agencies of the national security state, select think tanks and interest groups, "big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors and major corporations, television networks and elite publications like the New York Times, even quasi-academic entities like the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government" (15).

This book aspires to

  1. trace the history of the Washington rules;
  2. show who wins, who loses, and who pays under them;
  3. explain how itis perpetuated;
  4. show that the rules have lost what utility they might once have had;
  5. re-legitimate "disreputable (or 'radical') views to our national security debates" (16).

The American Century is ending, and it "has become essential" to devise an "alternative to the reining national security paradigm" (16-18).

Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar.

As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft," viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).

It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).

Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).

American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).

Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception (32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990] (34-36).

Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).

Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control

Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response " (60; 59-63).

This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).

McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what they wanted" (66-72).

In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible" Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82 [but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).

U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this (albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).

Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).

He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).

Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.

William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules (109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps, argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment, mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).

Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored" (127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy: The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).

By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). Andthe end of the Cold War posed no challenge to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).

Ch. 4: Reconstituting the Trinity

 The period from 1980 to 2000 saw "not retrenchment but reconfiguration" (147). The 

Except from Macmillan

Introduction: Slow Learner Worldly ambition inhibits true learning. Ask me. I know. A young man in a hurry is nearly uneducable: He knows what he wants and where he's headed; when it comes to looking back or entertaining heretical thoughts, he has neither the time nor the inclination. All that counts is that he is going somewhere. Only as ambition wanes does education become a possibility.

My own education did not commence until I had reached middle age. I can fix its start date with precision: For me, education began in Berlin, on a winter's evening, at the Brandenburg Gate, not long after the Berlin Wall had fallen. As an officer in the U.S. Army I had spent considerable time in Germany. Until that moment, however, my family and I had never had occasion to visit this most famous of German cities, still littered with artifacts of a deeply repellent history. At the end of a long day of exploration, we found ourselves in what had, until just months before, been the communist East. It was late and we were hungry, but I insisted on walking the length of the Unter den Linden, from the River Spree to the gate itself. A cold rain was falling and the pavement glistened. The buildings lining the avenue, dating from the era of Prussian kings, were dark, dirty, and pitted. Few people were about. It was hardly a night for sightseeing. For as long as I could remember, the Brandenburg Gate had been the preeminent symbol of the age and Berlin the epicenter of contemporary history. 

Yet by the time I made it to the once and future German capital, history was already moving on. The Cold War had abruptly ended. A divided city and a divided nation had re united. For Americans who had known Berlin only from a distance, the city existed primarily as a metaphor. Pick a date— 1933, 1942, 1945, 1948, 1961, 1989—and Berlin becomes an instructive symbol of power, depravity, tragedy, defiance, endurance, or vindication. For those inclined to view the past as a chronicle of parables, the modern history of Berlin offered an abundance of material. The greatest of those parables emerged from the events of 1933 to 1945, an epic tale of evil ascendant, belatedly confronted, then heroically overthrown.

A second narrative, woven from events during the intense period immediately following World War II, saw hopes for peace dashed, yielding bitter antagonism but also great resolve. The ensuing stand-off—the "long twilight struggle," in John Kennedy's memorable phrase— formed the centerpiece of the third parable, its central theme stubborn courage in the face of looming peril. Finally came the exhilarating events of 1989, with freedom ultimately prevailing, not only in Berlin, but throughout Eastern Europe.

.... ... ...

Although commonly depicted as the most advanced and successful component of the Soviet Empire, East Germany more closely resembled part of the undeveloped world.

... ... ...

Briquettes of soft coal used for home heating made the air all but unbreathable and coated everything with soot. In the German cities we knew, pastels predominated—houses and apartment blocks painted pale green, muted salmon, and soft yellow. Here everything was brown and gray

... ... ...

Bit by bit, my worldview started to crumble. That worldview had derived from this conviction: that American power manifested a commitment to global leadership, and that both together expressed and affirmed the nation's enduring devotion to its founding ideals. That American power, policies, and purpose were bound together in a neat, internally consistent package, each element drawing strength from and reinforcing the others, was something I took as a given. That, during my adult life, a penchant for interventionism had become a signature of U.S. policy did not—to me, at least—in any way contradict America's aspirations for peace. Instead, a willingness to expend lives and treasure in distant places testified to the seriousness of those aspirations. That, during this same period, the United States had amassed an arsenal of over thirty-one thousand nuclear weapons, some small number of them assigned to units in which I had served, was not at odds with our belief in the inalienable right to life and liberty; rather, threats to life and liberty had compelled the United States to acquire such an arsenal and maintain it in readiness for instant use.2 I was not so naive as to believe that the American record had been without flaws. Yet I assured myself that any errors or misjudgments had been committed in good faith. Furthermore, circumstances permitted little real choice. In Southeast Asia as in Western Europe, in the Persian Gulf as in the Western Hemisphere, the United States had simply done what needed doing. Viable alternatives did not exist. To consent to any dilution of American power would be to forfeit global leadership, thereby putting at risk safety, prosperity, and freedom, not only our own but also that of our friends and allies.

The choices seemed clear enough. On one side was the status quo: the commitments, customs, and habits that defined American globalism, implemented by the national security apparatus within which I functioned as a small cog. On the other side was the prospect of appeasement, isolationism, and catastrophe. The only responsible course was the one to which every president since Harry Truman had adhered. For me, the Cold War had played a crucial role in sustaining that worldview.

Given my age, upbringing, and professional background, it could hardly have been otherwise. Although the great rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union had contained moments of considerable anxiety — I remember my father, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, stocking our basement with water and canned goods — it served primarily to clarify, not to frighten.

The Cold War provided a framework that organized and made sense of contemporary history. It offered a lineup and a scorecard. That there existed bad Germans and good Germans, their Germans and our Germans, totalitarian Germans and Germans who, like Americans, passionately loved freedom was, for example, a proposition I accepted as dogma. Seeing the Cold War as a struggle between good and evil answered many questions, consigned others to the periphery, and rendered still others irrelevant.

Back in the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, more than a few members of my generation had rejected the conception of the Cold War as a Manichean struggle. Here too, I was admittedly a slow learner. Yet having kept the faith long after others had lost theirs, the doubts that eventually assailed me were all the more disorienting. Granted, occasional suspicions had appeared long before Jena and Berlin

My own Vietnam experience had generated its share, which I had done my best to suppress. I was, after all, a serving soldier. Except in the narrowest of terms, the military profession, in those days at least, did not look kindly on nonconformity. Climbing the ladder of career success required curbing maverick tendencies. To get ahead, you needed to be a team player. Later, when studying the history of U.S. foreign relations in graduate school, I was pelted with challenges to orthodoxy, which I vigorously deflected. When it came to education, graduate school proved a complete waste of time — a period of intense study devoted to the further accumulation of facts, while I exerted myself to ensuring that they remained inert.

Now, however, my personal circumstances were changing. Shortly after the passing of the Cold War, my military career ended. Education thereby became not only a possibility, but also a necessity. In measured doses, mortification cleanses the soul. It's the perfect antidote for excessive self-regard. After twenty-three years spent inside the U.S. Army seemingly going somewhere, I now found myself on the outside going nowhere in particular. In the self-contained and cloistered universe of regimental life, I had briefly risen to the status of minor spear carrier. The instant I took off my uniform, that status vanished. I soon came to a proper appreciation of my own insignificance, a salutary lesson that I ought to have absorbed many years earlier. As I set out on what eventually became a crablike journey toward a new calling as a teacher and writer—a pilgrimage of sorts—ambition in the commonly accepted meaning of the term ebbed. This did not happen all at once. Yet gradually, trying to grab one of life's shiny brass rings ceased being a major preoccupation.

Wealth, power, and celebrity became not aspirations but subjects for critical analysis.

History—especially the familiar narrative of the Cold War—no longer offered answers; instead, it posed perplexing riddles. Easily the most nagging was this one: How could I have so profoundly misjudged the reality of what lay on the far side of the Iron Curtain? Had I been insufficiently attentive? Or was it possible that I had been snookered all along? Contemplating such questions, while simultaneously witnessing the unfolding of the "long 1990s"— the period bookended by two wars with Iraq when American vainglory reached impressive new heights—prompted the realization that I had grossly misinterpreted the threat posed by America's adversaries. Yet that was the lesser half of the problem. Far worse than misperceiving "them" was the fact that I had misperceived "us." What I thought I knew best I actually understood least. Here, the need for education appeared especially acute.

George W. Bush's decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 pushed me fully into opposition. Claims that once seemed elementary—above all, claims relating to the essentially benign purposes of American power— now appeared preposterous. The contradictions that found an ostensibly peace-loving nation committing itself to a doctrine of preventive war became too great to ignore. The folly and hubris of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended "global war on terror" without the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won, and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords. During the era of containment, the United States had at least maintained the pretense of a principled strategy; now, the last vestiges of principle gave way to fantasy and opportunism. With that, the worldview to which I had adhered as a young adult and carried into middle age dissolved completely. *

What should stand in the place of such discarded convictions? Simply inverting the conventional wisdom, substituting a new Manichean paradigm for the old discredited version—the United States taking the place of the Soviet Union as the source of the world's evil—would not suffice. Yet arriving at even an approximation of truth would entail subjecting conventional wisdom, both present and past, to sustained and searching scrutiny. Cautiously at first but with growing confidence, this I vowed to do. Doing so meant shedding habits of conformity acquired over decades. All of my adult life I had been a company man, only dimly aware of the extent to which institutional loyalties induce myopia. Asserting independence required first recognizing the extent to which I had been socialized to accept certain things as unimpeachable. Here then were the preliminary steps essential to making education accessible. Over a period of years, a considerable store of debris had piled up. Now, it all had to go. Belatedly, I learned that more often than not what passes for conventional wisdom is simply wrong. Adopting fashionable attitudes to demonstrate one's trustworthiness—the world of politics is flush with such people hoping thereby to qualify for inclusion in some inner circle—is akin to engaging in prostitution in exchange for promissory notes. It's not only demeaning but downright foolhardy. This book aims to take stock of conventional wisdom in its most influential and enduring form, namely the package of assumptions, habits, and precepts that have defined the tradition of statecraft to which the United States has adhered since the end of World War II— the era of global dominance now drawing to a close. This postwar tradition combines two components, each one so deeply embedded in the American collective consciousness as to have all but disappeared from view.

The first component specifies norms according to which the international order ought to work and charges the United States with responsibility for enforcing those norms. Call this the American credo. In the simplest terms, the credo summons the United States—and the United States alone—to lead, save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world. In a celebrated manifesto issued at the dawn of what he termed "The American Century," Henry R. Luce made the case for this spacious conception of global leadership. Writing in Life magazine in early 1941, the influential publisher exhorted his fellow citizens to "accept wholeheartedly our duty to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." Luce thereby captured what remains even today the credo's essence.3 Luce's concept of an American Century, an age of unquestioned American global primacy, resonated, especially in Washington. His evocative phrase found a permanent place in the lexicon of national politics. (Recall that the neoconservatives who, in the 1990s, lobbied for more militant U.S. policies named their enterprise the Project for a New American Century.) So, too, did Luce's expansive claim of prerogatives to be exercised by the United States.

Even today, whenever public figures allude to America's responsibility to lead, they signal their fidelity to this creed. Along with respectful allusions to God and "the troops," adherence to Luce's credo has become a de facto prerequisite for high office. Question its claims and your prospects of being heard in the hubbub of national politics become nil. Note, however, that the duty Luce ascribed to Americans has two components. It is not only up to Americans, he wrote, to choose the purposes for which they would bring their influence to bear, but to choose the means as well. Here we confront the second component of the postwar tradition of American statecraft. With regard to means, that tradition has emphasized activism over example, hard power over soft, and coercion (often styled "negotiating from a position of strength") over suasion. Above all, the exercise of global leadership as prescribed by the credo obliges the United States to maintain military capabilities staggeringly in excess of those required for self-defense. Prior to World War II, Americans by and large viewed military power and institutions with skepticism, if not outright hostility. In the wake of World War II, that changed. An affinity for military might emerged as central to the American identity. By the midpoint of the twentieth century, "the Pentagon" had ceased to be merely a gigantic five-sided building.

Like "Wall Street" at the end of the nineteenth century, it had become Leviathan, its actions veiled in secrecy, its reach extending around the world. Yet while the concentration of power in Wall Street had once evoked deep fear and suspicion, Americans by and large saw the concentration of power in the Pentagon as benign. Most found it reassuring. A people who had long seen standing armies as a threat to liberty now came to believe that the preservation of liberty required them to lavish resources on the armed forces. During the Cold War, Americans worried ceaselessly about falling behind the Russians, even though the Pentagon consistently maintained a position of overall primacy. Once the Soviet threat disappeared, mere primacy no longer sufficed. With barely a whisper of national debate, unambiguous and perpetual global military supremacy emerged as an essential predicate to global leadership. Every great military power has its distinctive signature. For Napoleonic France, it was the levée en masse— the people in arms animated by the ideals of the Revolution. For Great Britain in the heyday of empire, it was command of the seas, sustained by a dominant fleet and a network of far-flung outposts from Gibraltar and the Cape of Good Hope to Singapore and Hong Kong. Germany from the 1860s to the 1940s (and Israel from 1948 to 1973) took another approach, relying on a potent blend of tactical flexibility and operational audacity to achieve battlefield superiority.

The abiding signature of American military power since World War II has been of a different order altogether. The United States has not specialized in any particular type of war. It has not adhered to a fixed tactical style. No single service or weapon has enjoyed consistent favor. At times, the armed forces have relied on citizen-soldiers to fill their ranks; at other times, long-service professionals. Yet an examination of the past sixty years of U.S. military policy and practice does reveal important elements of continuity. Call them the sacred trinity: an abiding conviction that the minimum essentials of international peace and order require the United States to maintain a global military presence, to configure its forces for global power projection, and to counter existing or anticipated threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism. Together, credo and trinity—the one defining purpose, the other practice—constitute the essence of the way that Washington has attempted to govern and police the American Century. The relationship between the two is symbiotic. The trinity lends plausibility to the credo's vast claims. For its part, the credo justifies the trinity's vast requirements and exertions.

Together they provide the basis for an enduring consensus that imparts a consistency to U.S. policy regardless of which political party may hold the upper hand or who may be occupying the White House. From the era of Harry Truman to the age of Barack Obama, that consensus has remained intact. It defines the rules to which Washington adheres; it determines the precepts by which Washington rules. As used here, Washington is less a geographic expression than a set of interlocking institutions headed by people who, whether acting officially or unofficially, are able to put a thumb on the helm of state. Washington, in this sense, includes the upper echelons of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government. It encompasses the principal components of the national security state— the departments of Defense, State, and, more recently, Homeland Security, along with various agencies comprising the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities. Its ranks extend to select think tanks and interest groups. Lawyers, lobbyists, fixers, former officials, and retired military officers who still enjoy access are members in good standing. Yet Washington also reaches beyond the Beltway to include big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors and major corporations, television networks and elite publications like the New York Times, even quasi-academic entities like the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

With rare exceptions, acceptance of the Washington rules forms a prerequisite for entry into this world. My purpose in writing this book is fivefold: first, to trace the origins and evolution of the Washington rules—both the credo that inspires consensus and the trinity in which it finds expression; second, to subject the resulting consensus to critical inspection, showing who wins and who loses and also who foots the bill; third, to explain how the Washington rules are perpetuated, with certain views privileged while others are declared disreputable; fourth, to demonstrate that the rules themselves have lost whatever utility they may once have possessed, with their implications increasingly pernicious and their costs increasingly unaffordable; and finally, to argue for readmitting disreputable (or "radical") views to our national security debate, in effect legitimating alternatives to the status quo. In effect, my aim is to invite readers to share in the process of education on which I embarked two decades ago in Berlin. The Washington rules were forged at a moment when American influence and power were approaching their acme. That moment has now passed. The United States has drawn down the stores of authority and goodwill it had acquired by 1945. Words uttered in Washington command less respect than once was the case. Americans can ill afford to indulge any longer in dreams of saving the world, much less remaking it in our own image. The curtain is now falling on the American Century. Similarly, the United States no longer possesses sufficient wherewithal to sustain a national security strategy that relies on global military presence and global power projection to underwrite a policy of global interventionism. Touted as essential to peace, adherence to that strategy has propelled the United States into a condition approximating perpetual war, as the military misadventures of the past decade have demonstrated.

To anyone with eyes to see, the shortcomings inherent in the Washington rules have become plainly evident. Although those most deeply invested in perpetuating its conventions will insist otherwise, the tradition to which Washington remains devoted has begun to unravel. Attempting to prolong its existence might serve Washington's interests, but it will not serve the interests of the American people.

Devising an alternative to the reigning national security paradigm will pose a daunting challenge—especially if Americans look to "Washington" for fresh thinking. Yet doing so has become essential. In one sense, the national security policies to which Washington so insistently adheres express what has long been the preferred American approach to engaging the world beyond our borders. That approach plays to America's presumed strong suit—since World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War, thought to be military power. In another sense, this reliance on military might creates excuses for the United States to avoid serious engagement: Confidence in American arms has made it unnecessary to attend to what others might think or to consider how their aspirations might differ from our own.

In this way, the Washington rules reinforce American provincialism—a national trait for which the United States continues to pay dearly. The persistence of these rules has also provided an excuse to avoid serious self-engagement. From this perspective, confidence that the credo and the trinity will oblige others to accommodate themselves to America's needs or desires — whether for cheap oil, cheap credit, or cheap consumer goods—has allowed Washington to postpone or ignore problems demanding attention here at home.

Fixing Iraq or Afghanistan ends up taking precedence over fixing Cleveland and Detroit. Purporting to support the troops in their crusade to free the world obviates any obligation to assess the implications of how Americans themselves choose to exercise freedom. When Americans demonstrate a willingness to engage seriously with others, combined with the courage to engage seriously with themselves, then real education just might begin.

In their article ‘The American Century’ Has Plunged the World Into Crisis. What Happens Now?" Conn Hallinan and Leon Wofsy outlined important reasons  of the inevitability of the dominance of chicken hawks and jingoistic foreign policy in the USA political establishment:

June 22, 2015 | fpif.org

U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, and deeply out of sync with real global challenges. Is continuous war inevitable, or can we change course?

There’s something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

Despite glimmers of hope — a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran, for one, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba — we’re locked into seemingly irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They range from tensions with nuclear-armed powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating cycle that reflects an inability — or unwillingness — to see the world as it actually is?

The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world, but this is neither acknowledged nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral superiority empower us to set the terms of “world order.”

While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union that signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed “American Century.” The idea that the United States had “won” the Cold War and now — as the world’s lone superpower — had the right or responsibility to order the world’s affairs led to a series of military adventures. It started with President Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued on with George W. Bush’s disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administration’s own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.

In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound consequences for both foreign and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions that drive this impulsive interventionism.

It’s this disconnect that defines the current crisis.

Acknowledging New Realities

So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to mind.

First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East — and to a significant extent, our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia — distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action. That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.

Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering. There’s no short-term solution — especially by force — to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.

Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends on international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent, including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into “friend” and “foe” according to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.

Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence is shifting and giving rise to national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and Berlin, alternative centers of economic power are taking hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people); the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.

Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional.

Short Memories and Persistent Delusions

But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us pause, our government continues to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate to the rest of the world.

The responsibility of those who set us on this course fades into background. Indeed, in light of the ongoing meltdown in the Middle East, leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz — who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power — for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot’s advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.

While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited, our government makes wide use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops back into Iraq to confront the religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) — itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion of Iraq. Reluctant to find common ground in the fight against ISIS with designated “foes” like Iran and Syria, Washington clings to allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine barbarity. Elsewhere, the U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government, despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its horrific recurring assaults on Gaza.

A “war first” policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. Though it’s attempted to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions with planned military realignments like the “Asia pivot” aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. It’s also taken a more aggressive position than even other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.

We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an “American Century.” International order cannot be enforced by a superpower alone. But never mind centuries — if we don’t learn to take our common interests more seriously than those that divide nations and breed the chronic danger of war, there may well be no tomorrows.

Unexceptionalism

There’s a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy must confront: that U.S. culture is superior to anything else on the planet. Generally going by the name of “American exceptionalism,” it’s the deeply held belief that American politics (and medicine, technology, education, and so on) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the belief is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things on the rest of the world.

Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact they’ve dropped from 1st place to 14th place in the number of college graduates. We’ve made students of higher education the most indebted section of our population, while falling to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those in the rest of the world.

Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organization’s ranking of health care systems in 2000, the United States was ranked 37th. In a more recent Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations studied.

The old anti-war slogan, “It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier” is as appropriate today as it was in the 1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy, and massive military budgets over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.

But challenging the “exceptionalism” myth courts the danger of being labeled “unpatriotic” and “un-American,” two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices.

The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology “superior” is hardly unique. But no other country in the world has the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview on others.

The United States did not simply support Kosovo’s independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders.

The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the world’s military spending. It has hundreds of overseas bases, ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa, Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny bases called “lily pads” of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.

The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick “smash and grabs” like Panama and Grenada. Others are “shadow wars” waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term “war” as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945.

The Home Front

The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.

According Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars — including the long-term health problems of veterans — will cost U.S. taxpayers around $6 trillion. One can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year on defense-related items. The “official” defense budget of some half a trillion dollars doesn’t include such items as nuclear weapons, veterans’ benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security, nor the billions a year in interest we’ll be paying on the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already paid out $316 billion in interest.

The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.

We spend more on our “official” military budget than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11, we’ve spent $70 million an hour on “security” compared to $62 million an hour on all domestic programs.

As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism — the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth — continues to plague our homeland.

The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised.

Bombs and Business

President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that “the business of America is business.” Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate interests play a major role in American foreign policy.

Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that its products don’t always emulate on the battlefield. The F-35 fighter-bomber, for example — the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history — will cost $1.5 trillion and doesn’t work. It’s over budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful corporations who have shoved this lemon down our throats.

Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals. Both combine to try to control energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.

Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 “Carter Doctrine” — a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America — put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis the Middle East:

 “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

It’s no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition with China. But if push comes to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests of Washington and its allies — Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia.

Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not only essential for reducing international tensions. It’s critically important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.

As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations will vie for spheres of influence, and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined — and the impulse to respond by military means — is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more that some governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.

Finding the Common Interest

These, however, are not the only factors that will shape the future.

There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise or transformation of a capitalistic system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social movements here and abroad respond to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in “American Century” exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.

There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty, to rising messianic violence, and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not only the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but between regional powers. A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.

Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive on gambling with the future of humanity, historic experience and current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and survival. The need to change course is not something that can be recognized on only one side of an ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend on national, ethnic, or religious identity. Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around us.

After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience shows that elections, important as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant change can come about in matters of policy. On issues of civil rights and social equality, advances have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public opinion in a way the political establishment could not defy.

The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican administrations, when a stalemate on the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about even as the basic character of society is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and other colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated in the United States. President Nixon was forced to resign. The use of landmines and cluster bombs has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small band of activists whose initial efforts were labeled “quixotic.”

There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger of the course we’re on. Many Republicans, Democrats, independents, and libertarians — and much of the public — are beginning to say “enough” to war and military intervention all over the globe, and the folly of basing foreign policy on dividing countries into “friend or foe.”

This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded into supporting the use of force. In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that “over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism.” Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.

It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.

Making Space for the Unexpected

Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?

Foremost, there is the need for a real debate on the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses negotiation, diplomacy, and international cooperation over the use of force.

However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the candidates to challenge U.S. foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the crisis of foreign policy lurches further into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.

Nor is it a matter of concern only on the left. There are many Americans — right, left, or neither — who sense the futility of the course we’re on. These voices have to be represented or the election process will be even more of a sham than we’ve recently experienced.

One can’t predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement suggests that necessity can override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward, although a limited bilateral pact cannot substitute for an essential international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in the U.S.-Russian joint action that removed chemical weapons from Syria, and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite fierce opposition from U.S. hawks and the Israeli government. More recently, there is Obama’s bold move — long overdue — to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. Despite shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.

We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations. We are certain that there is much we’ve missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S. foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it is not carried out in the interests of the majority of the world’s people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.

If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy, and encourage dissent and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great that finding common ground trumps any particular interest. We also know that we won’t all agree with each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future. No coalition around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any one pattern of political action.

So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do we consider the problem of power?

The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists to the potential influence of the general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible — as well as necessary — to make significant changes in the power structure itself.

Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party that was successfully elected to power on a platform of ending austerity. Spain’s anti-austerity Podemos Party — now the number-two party in the country — came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was organized from the grassroots up. We do not argue one approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate that there are multiple paths to generating change.

Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress on issues, particularly in matters like war and peace and climate change, shouldn’t be conceived of as dependent on first achieving general solutions to the problems of society, however desirable.

... ... ...

Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear online at Dispatches From the Edge. Leon Wofsy is a retired biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments on current affairs appear online at Leon’s OpEd.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 1999

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Jan 19, 2021] I am especially proud to be the first president in decades who has started no new wars

Jan 19, 2021 | www.rt.com

banallwars 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 04:32 PM

What a lie. The bombs being dropped from the U.S. made jets the Saudi pilots fly over Yemen killing civilians leaves blood all over his hands not to mention shaking the hand of the Saudi that murdered a journalist before selling him weapons to kill Yemen's civilians.
Waryaa Moxamad 48 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 05:36 PM
1) False flag chemical attack on Syria. 2) killing Soleimani in a sovereign country he was invited to 3) Guaido 4) Bolivia. 5) continuing the wars predecessors started.

Who is being fooled that U.S. presidency has any say in America's imperialism?

Debra***** Waryaa Moxamad 40 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 05:46 PM
Who really pushed for General Soleimani to be killed and has the most personal and intense vendetta against Soleimani? Mike Pompeo. Trump did not give the Pentagon and CIA all the wars they wanted, especially in Syria. Now the Pentagon and the CIA have their puppet, Corrupt Biden, who will do what they command him to do. I would expect in one year to see another massive war. Where? Syria. The US mothers will cry when their sons come home in coffins. The Hez in Lebanon will not back down, and they will enter Syria again. Trump did not want young American boys coming back in coffins!!!!!!!

[Jan 19, 2021] Few sights in Washington are more familiar than an intellectual urging "total war" from the safety of the keyboard

Highly recommended!
In a way neocon jingoism serve as a smoke scree to sitrct "depolables" from the decline of the standard of living under neoliberalism.
Jan 19, 2021 | www.nybooks.com

Orthodoxy of the Elites - by Jackson Lears - The New York Review of Books

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)

[Jan 19, 2021] 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.

Jan 19, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , Jan 19 2021 21:57 utc | 36

Posted by: teri | Jan 19 2021 21:31 utc | 33

>>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.

[Jan 19, 2021] Goodbye Sheldon Adelson by Philip Giraldi

What is interesting tha casino traditionally was regarded as mafia connected business.
Jan 19, 2021 | www.unz.com

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 is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

[Jan 19, 2021] US expands sanctions against Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, targeting ships Russian firms working on vital pan-European projec

Jan 19, 2021 | www.rt.com

46 Follow RT on RT 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.

ALSO ON RT.COM Gazprom warns investors that Nord Stream 2 could be canceled as Trump announces more US sanctions in 'parting gift'

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.

ALSO ON RT.COM One more European firm caves to US pressure on Nord Stream 2 project – media

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 RT 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.

[Jan 17, 2021] The pot calling the kettle black: Liz Cheney forgot about Bush II administration crimes

Liz Cheney who probably got her position due to her father might well overplayed her hand.
Jan 17, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

MhOOMan 5 hours ago remove link

Below is a list of which House Republicans voted to impeach Trump on Wednesday.

[Jan 14, 2021] 25 Organizations Say Victoria Nuland should not be nominated for undersecretary of state for political affairs, and if nominated should be rejected by the Senate.

Jan 14, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Organization's statement originally published at https://worldbeyondwar.org/nuland

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."

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=830

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.

[Jan 11, 2021] Is America's Future a Civil War, by Paul Craig Roberts -

Notable quotes:
"... The military would support whomever pays their salary and their pensions, i.e. the Establishment. However, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the U.S. military, while possessing remarkable firepower when taken on directly and openly, is quite vulnerable. The U.S. military is essentially mercenaries. Mercenaries work for pay. Mercenaries are not willing to die for a cause. You can't spend money if you're dead. ..."
Jan 11, 2021 | www.unz.com

As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to me that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil war or a police state. In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a 50-50 toss up.

There is abundant evidence of a police state. One feature of a police state is controlled explanations and the suppression of dissent. We certainly have that in abundance.

Experts are not permitted forums in which to challenge the official position on Covid.

Teachers are suspended for giving offense by using gender pronouns.

Recording stars are dropped by their recording studios for attending the Trump rally. Parents ratted on by their own children are fired from their jobs for attending the Trump rally. https://www.rt.com/usa/512048-capitol-riot-employees-fired/ Antifa is free to riot, loot, intimidate and hassle, but Trump supporters are insurrectionists.

White people are racists who use hateful words and concepts, but those who demonize whites are righting wrongs.

Suppression of dissent and controlling behavior are police state characteristics. It might be less clear to some why dictating permissible use of language is police state control. Think about it this way. If your use of pronouns can be controlled, so can your use of all other words. As concepts involve words, they also can be controlled. In this way inconvenient thoughts and expressions along with accurate descriptions find their way into the Memory Hole.

With the First Amendment gone, or restricted to the demonization of targeted persons, such as "the Trump Deplorables," "white supremacists," "Southern racists," the Second Amendment can't have much life left. As guns are associated with red states, that is, with Trump supporters, outlawing guns is a way to criminalize the red half of the American population that the Establishment considers "deplorable." Those who stand on their Constitutional right will be imprisoned and become cheap prison labor for America's global corporations.

Could all this lead to a civil war or are Americans too beat down to effectively resist? That we won't know until it is put to the test.

Are there clear frontlines? Identity Politics has divided the people across the entire country. The red states are only majority red. It is tempting to see the frontiers as the red center against the blue Northeast and West coasts, but that is misleading. Georgia is a red state with a red governor and legislature, but there were enough Democrats in power locally to steal the presidential and US senate elections.

Another problem for reds is that large cities -- the distribution centers -- such as Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles -- are in blue hands as are ports and international airports. Effectively, this cuts reds off from outside resources.

What would the US military do? Clearly, the Joint Chiefs and the military/security complex are establishment and not anti-establishment Trumpers. With the soldiers themselves now a racial and gender mix, the soldiers would be as divided as the country. Those not with the Establishment would lack upper level support.

Where are the youth and younger adults? They are in both camps depending on their education. Many of the whites who went to university have been brainwashed against themselves, and regard white Americans as "systemic racists" or "white supremacists" and feel guilt. Those who did not go to university for the most part have experienced to their disadvantage the favoritism given to people of color and have resentment.

What about weapons? How can the reds lose when guns are a household item and blues would never dirty themselves by owning one? The answer is that unlike the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s, today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those in the hands of the public. Unlike in the past, it is impossible for a citizens' militia to stand against the weapons and body armor that the military has. So, unless the military splits, the reds are outgunned. Never believe that the Establishment would not release chemical and biological agents against red forces. Or for that matter nuclear weapons.

What about communications? We know for an absolute fact that the tech monopolies are aligned with the Establishment against the people. So much so that President Trump, in the process of being set-up for prosecution, has been cut off from communicating with his supporters both in social media and email.

The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian President Yanukovych in Washington's orchestrated "Maidan Revolution," called "the Revolution of Dignity" by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez, Maduro, and would like to do to Putin.

Suppose an American civil war occurs. How is it likely to play out? Before investigating this, first consider how the Establishment could prevent it by bringing the red states to its defense. The Trump supporters are the only patriots in the American population. They tend to wear the flag on their sleeve. In contrast, blue state denizens define patriotism as acknowledging America's evils and taking retribution on those white racists/imperialists who committed the evils. In blue states, riots against the "racist system" result in defunding the police. If the Antifa and Black Lives Matter militias were sicced on the Biden regime, red state patriots might see "their country" under attack. It is possible that the "Proud Boys" would come to Biden's defense, not because they believe in Biden but because America is under attack and he is "our president." Alternatively, an Antifa attack on the Biden regime could be portrayed as an unpatriotic attack on America and be used to discourage red state opposition to the police state, just as "Insurrection" has resulted in many Trump supporters declaring their opposition to violence. In other words, it is entirely possible that the patriotism of the "Trump Deplorables" would split the red state opposition and lead to defeat.

Assuming that the Establishment is too arrogant and sure of itself or too stupid to think of this ploy, how would a civil war play out? The Establishment would do everything possible to discredit the case of the "rebels." The true rebels, of course, would be the Establishment which has overthrown the Constitutional order, but no media would make that point. Controlling the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents, would portray the "rebels" as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy.

The "foreign threat" always captures the patriot's attention. We see it right now with Trump supporters falling for the disinformation that Switzerland and Italy are behind the stolen election. Previously, it was Dominion servers in Germany and Serbia that did the deed.

On whose head will the Establishment place the blame for "the War Against America"? There are three candidates: Iran, China, and Russia. Which will the Establishment choose?

To give Iran credit conveys too much power to a relatively small country over America. To blame Iran for our civil war would be belittling.

To blame China won't work, because Trump blamed China for economically undermining America and Trump supporters are generally anti-China. So accusing the red opposition with being China agents would not work.

The blame will be placed on Russia.

This is the easy one. Russia has been the black hat ever since Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in 1946. Americans are accustomed to this enemy. The Cold War reigned from the end of World War II until the Soviet Collapse in 1991. Many, including retired American generals, maintain that the Soviet collapse was faked to put us off guard for conquest.

When the Establishment decided to frame President Trump, the Establishment chose Russia as Trump's co-conspirator against American Democracy. Russiagate, orchestrated by the CIA and FBI, ensured for three years that Trump was accused in the Western media of being in cahoots with Russia. Despite the lack of any evidence, a large percentage of the American and world population was convinced that Trump was put into office by Putin somehow manipulating the vote.

The brainwashing was so successful that three years of Trump sanctions against Russia could not shake the Western peoples back into factual reality.

With Russia as the historic and orchestrated enemy, whatever happens in the United States that can be blamed elsewhere will be blamed on Russia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, and former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes have already associated "Trump's insurrection" with Russia. https://www.rt.com/russia/512071-capitol-violence-consequences-fear/

Suppose that an American civil war becomes intense. Suppose that the Establishment's propaganda against Russia becomes the reigning belief as propaganda almost always becomes, how can the Establishment not finish the insurrection threat by attacking the country responsible? The Establishment would be trapped in its own propaganda. Emotions would run away. Russia would hear threats that would have to be taken seriously.

You can bet that Biden's neocon government will be egging this on. American exceptionalism. American hegemony. Russia's fifth column, the Atlanticist Integrationists, who wish absorption into the degenerate and failing Western World, will echo the charges against Russia. This would make the situation a serious international incident with Russia as the threatened villain.

What would the Kremlin do? Would Russia's leaders accept yet another humiliation and false accusation? Or will the anger of the Russian people forever accused and never stood up for by their own government force the Kremlin into awareness that Russia could be attacked at any moment.

Even if the Kremlin is reluctant to acknowledge the threat of war, what if another of the numerous false warnings of incoming ICBMs is received. Unlike the past, is it believed this time?

The stolen election in America, the emerging American Police State, more vicious and better armed than any in the past, could result in American chaos that could be a dire threat to the Russian Federation.

What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that real evidence no longer counts . The Establishment makes up the evidence that it needs for its agendas. Consider how easy it was for the Capitol Police to remove barriers and allow some Antifa mixed in with Trump supporters into the Capitol. This was all that was required to create a "Trump led insurrection" that terminated the presentation of evidence of electoral fraud and turned the massive rally of support for Trump into a liability. Trump now leaves the presidency as an "insurrectionist" and is set up for continued harassment and prosecution.

As I previously wrote, the stolen election and its acceptance abroad signifies the failure of Western democracy. The collapse of the Western world and its values will affect the entire world.


Joe Stalin , says: January 10, 2021 at 5:16 pm GMT • 23.4 hours ago

How long did it take for the mighty USA military to restore electric utilities in the face of insurgency in Iraq?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/gg-Zd193j60?feature=oembed

No member of the State wants to be picked off one by one, be it military, cops, leadership or functionaries.

What has been overlooked in the debate over the combat potential of violent extremists is the diffusion of something much more rudimentary and potentially more lethal: basic infantry skills. These include coordinated small-team tactical maneuvers supported by elementary marksmanship. The diffusion of such tactics seems to be underway, and it may generate serious concerns for U.S. security policy in the future if ignored.

https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/shock-of-the-mundane-the-dangerous-diffusion-of-basic-infantry-tactics/

Imagine if fuel pipe lines to urban areas were hit, railroad tracks hit, water processing facilities hit; the vision of an easy victory over Red America would quickly come home to the city dwellers.

Harry Huntington , says: January 10, 2021 at 6:02 pm GMT • 22.6 hours ago
@Joe Stalin /p>

Elections in the US are not about picking winners. They are about making voters complicit in governance by their having voted. The most recent election failed to make the Red voters "complict" because there was no transparency and everyone believes there was fraud. No election with mail in voting in the US will every work because everyone will assume fraud.

In a nation as large as the US with as much concentrated city living, logistics are a nightmare. The next time the lights go out, you may wonder. When your grocery chain runs out of meat, you may wonder. When sewers in your city keep breaking, you may wonder. Thus truly scares me.

Vidi , says: January 10, 2021 at 6:13 pm GMT • 22.4 hours ago

today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those in the hands of the public

True enough. However, the weapons and the ammunition don't magically appear; they need to be manufactured somewhere, and those places (and/or their suppliers) can be destroyed.

TG , says: January 10, 2021 at 6:19 pm GMT • 22.3 hours ago

I must disagree. There will be no "civil war" in the United States. The establishment controls the levers of power and all communications and all organized structures. There may be a bunch of disaffected citizens, but they will remain a disorganized mob. Any apparent emergent rival for power will be ruthlessly suppressed, deplatformed, villified, or co-opted. The working class has been effectively divided and will waste its energy fighting itself over crumbs ('diversity').

Disorganized mobs do not fight civil wars.

No, the fate of the United States will be the sort of chaotic autocracy we see in places like Mexico and Brazil. Verging on being a failed state, the rich will nonetheless live lives of great luxury secure in their walled estates. Meanwhile the average person will be crushed into poverty, criminal gangs will flourish, and there will be a tension between the central police and local gangs, but gangs are rarely organized enough to truly challenge centralized states, and life will muddle on. There will be little social cohesion and no real trust of central authorities, but that only matters if you want a strong and unified society. The rich will do fine.

On the other hand, the overall national power will decline, and other powers like China (which for all its flaws has not declared war on the working class, nor does it routinely excuse or celebrate incompetence in leadership) will rise and take its place both on the world stage and as the cutting edge of science and culture.

Wyatt , says: January 10, 2021 at 6:48 pm GMT • 21.8 hours ago
@Vidi

And the people making them don't tend to want those weapons used against their friends and neighbors.

Notsofast , says: January 10, 2021 at 8:03 pm GMT • 20.6 hours ago

to me the biggest outcome of this faux coup/insurrection is the splintering of the republican party. with this schism the trump "populists" have been cleanly pared off of the party and thrown overboard and the remaining party will meekly do the bidding of the neocon deep state that now totally controls both of these sock puppet parties. we will now see both parties calling for a unification of our "indispensable nation". more than likely some false flag will provide the necessary impetus to bury the hatchet and focus us all on our new/old enemy. the only hope i see is an outside chance that so many republicans have been redpilled that the party becomes the new whigs and fades into obscurity, leaving room for new parties to rise from the ash. the dems are ripe for a schism themselves with aoc champing at the bit to kick the boomers to the curb and the bernie bros finally realizing that three card monty is a rigged game. i would love to see the destruction of both of these hopelessly corrupt parties but the deep state cthulhu has its tentacles thoroughly wrapped around our poor planet and anything emerging out of this toxic mess would most likely be even worse. the situation reminds me of voltaire's candide and his sage advice to cultivate your garden.

Anon [912] Disclaimer , says: January 10, 2021 at 8:26 pm GMT • 20.2 hours ago

I'd advise the young to develop a "plan B". Pick another country you find bearable amd study it. Find out what jobs are in demand there. Develop those skills in your spare time (computers, electricians, mechanics, etc.). Practice their language an hour or two per week with online resources/dvd's/books. Research their immigration laws and perhaps contact their embassy.

If it gets really awful for whites here, you may be able to take your family some place more hospitable. Hopefully none of this will be neccessary and the rhetoric will tone down. Trump personally really got under the left's skin. Don't umderestimate Hillary's supporters influence here. They were ticked off. The Obama's too. Perhaps they will calm down a notch now. Have a plan B though young whites.

Citizen of a Silly Country , says: January 10, 2021 at 11:17 pm GMT • 17.4 hours ago

Another insightful article by PCR. However, I must somewhat disagree on some points.

What would the US military do?

The military would support whomever pays their salary and their pensions, i.e. the Establishment. However, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the U.S. military, while possessing remarkable firepower when taken on directly and openly, is quite vulnerable. The U.S. military is essentially mercenaries. Mercenaries work for pay. Mercenaries are not willing to die for a cause. You can't spend money if you're dead.

Think of the Troubles in Ireland.

The Establishment absolutely can deliver a punch to an identifiable opponent, but it can't take a punch. Low level violence directed at officers and politicians would bring them to their knees.

Controlling the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents, would portray the "rebels" as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy.

I agree that they will try. However, I suspect that PCR is underestimating how little faith many whites have in the media.

The Establishment will never be more powerful than it is today. They have inherited institutions, the people to man those institutions and a generally functioning economy. Basically, they stole the keys to car that they didn't create. But the Establishment run those institutions and economy into ground. They will slowly start to show cracks.

Whites need to stay low, start forming small groups and begin preparing for the openings that will come.

Dr. Robert Morgan , says: January 11, 2021 at 1:34 am GMT • 15.1 hours ago

The racial right has been fantasizing about a civil war since forever, but I can't see it. Too many people have too much to lose, there's no real desire for blood, and the people are anyway too soft to initiate or withstand the violence real war would unleash upon them. Further, and in stark contrast to the SJWs and antifa, the few racially conscious whites who fantasize about this are mostly too old to make good soldiers. Also, just like the "God emperor" himself, Trumpers are some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth, largely down with their own enslavement, nauseatingly fond of "law and order", sporting "Blue Lives Matter" badges, etc. Despite being preyed upon by blacks and browns for decades now, they still refuse to become racist. Most of them are Bible thumpers who really believe that race is just skin color, that all are equal before their imaginary friend called God, and that Israel is America's greatest ally. Then too, vast numbers of whites work for the government or its many offshoots such as education, law enforcement, the military, and the defense industry. Civil war would mean they'd be revolting against themselves.

Will America become a police state? In case you haven't noticed, Americans already live in a police state, and have for decades. PCR should know this as well as anyone, as he was part of it during the Reagan years. America is an open-air prison Americans built themselves, and they rat each other out and betray each other to keep themselves ideologically in line. When someone white is doxxed and fired for having bad thoughts, who do you think does the enforcing? For the most part, it's other white people. Fake president and China asset Biden is just the new warden.

Harold Smith , says: January 11, 2021 at 3:45 am GMT • 12.9 hours ago

As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to me that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil war or a police state. In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a 50-50 toss up.

In a very meaningful sense we already have a "police state." Why do we have a police state? Because our masters realize that they can't run the whole world from anything resembling a constitutional republic (as the Founders and Framers envisioned it). It's the agenda for complete world domination and control that's driving the domestic oppression. As they continue to squander everything of value on the agenda and take more risks, etc., while the corruption and rot continue to take a toll and the country crumbles, the boot will need to come down ever harder on the neck.

And please stop kidding yourself about Trump. It wasn't for the benefit of Joe and Jill Sixpack that he seized Syrian oilfields, tried to start a war with Iran, tried to overthrow the Maduro government in Venezuela, tried to stop Nord Stream 2, started a trade war with China, pulled out of all the nuclear treaties, etc. Trump wasn't just fully onboard with the agenda, he pursued it enthusiastically.

If Trump's nuclear brinkmanship and aggressive foreign policies aren't promptly reversed, the U.S. may end as a pile of nuclear ash. Comments coming out of Moscow recently seem to suggest that Russia is finally losing its patience with interminable U.S. hostility and may soon start responding more forcefully to U.S./NATO provocations (and Biden's tough talk on Russia isn't helping matters any).

Neither Russia, China nor Iran are going to surrender to the USraeli empire and start taking orders, so either the U.S. "government" must back off and accept a multipolar world or WW3 is still on the table, even by accident.

tanabear , says: January 11, 2021 at 5:45 am GMT • 10.9 hours ago

From Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.

The Civil War in Corcyra

"So savage was the progress of this revolution, and it seemed all the more so because it was one of the first which had broken out. Later, of course, practically the whole of the Hellenic world was convulsed, with rival parties in every state – democratic leaders trying to bring in the Athenians, and oligarchs trying to bring in the Spartans. In peacetime there would have been no excuse and no desire for calling them in, but in time of war, when each party could always count upon an alliance which would do harm to its opponents and at the same time strengthen its own position, it became a natural thing for anyone who wanted a change of government to call in help from outside.

So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occurred late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings . What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character ; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership , since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of the established laws, but to acquire power by overthrowing the existing regime ; and the members of these parties felt confidence in each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.

As the result of these revolutions, there was a general deterioration of character throughout the Greek world . The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps , and each side viewed the other with suspicion. As for ending this state of affairs, no guarantee could be given that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement and so, instead of being able to feel confident in others, they devoted their energies to providing against being injured themselves."

Just another serf , says: January 11, 2021 at 6:04 am GMT • 10.6 hours ago

Whether civil war as we may imagine it, or something equally unappealing to our every day lives, something bad is about to happen.

I'm curious though, regarding what I do believe was unprecedented election fraud. How is it possible, after watching the Georgia State Farm arena video, that the President of the United States, with all the power that office should hold, could not force the woman identified in that video, one Ruby Freeman, to answer questions about what we saw? Ruby Freeman was never questioned as far as I can find. How is this possible? Nothing makes sense. Before we begin killing one another, can we do two things; 1. Interrogate Ruby Freeman and 2. Interrogate the killer of Ashli Babbit?

Zarathustra , says: January 11, 2021 at 6:24 am GMT • 10.2 hours ago

Little bit feverish article. And I do have to say no.
Civil war can happen only after hyperinflation accompanied with lawlessness.
And that will happen only if US looses its international position.
Everything depend now on Germany.
If Germany joins China Russia camp than US as a world leader will not mean anything anymore.
China now is courting Europe intensively. Particularly is courting Germany.
Nothing is set yet.
So everybody can relax.
.
Biden is out of his mind. In his speech he said that he wants to increase minimum wage and reestablish unions. That could be a little help also.

shylockcracy , says: January 11, 2021 at 6:58 am GMT • 9.7 hours ago

People living in the core areas of Ziocorporate globalism, like the US/EU, remain mostly oblivious about the nature of their ruling regime than those living in the direct periphery of globalist power. Take Colombia for an example, like Mexico's, all its presidents are subservient to US Ziocorporate power. Last one, a Nobel peace prize winner under whose pre-presidential stint as "Defense" minister oversaw the US-serving Colombian military's systematic massacre of tens of thousands of lower class Colombian youths who were then disguised as guerrillas to cash in rewards paid US Plan Colombia dollars, proceeded, now as president, to negotiate the disarmament of the actual guerrillas under the Obama/Biden regime's orders. Massmurder and massacres maintained an average level.

Then, in 2018, right after the Trumpet, a shamelessly pro-US regime, even for Colombian standards, took over and massacres and massmurder picked right up again, to an average of 2 or 3 per week, with exploding cocaine production even for Colombia standards as well, and extreme political polarisation, and all the while the Ziocorporate mother ship in Washington, with its Qtard and MAGA bullshit, looked the other way except to accuse Venezuela of being undemocratic and of human rights violations.

If Americans weren't so stupid and daydreaming like fucktards that they live in "muh democracy/republic" instead of the Ziocorporate conglomerate regime that rules over them, they could take a clue or two from their own regime's foreign policy, not only did Trumpet do things like transferring $400 billion in weapons to ISIS/al-Qaeda royal Salafi patrons in Ziodi Wahhabia, he doubled-down on the Obama/Biden policy of Venezuela "is a national security threat to muh democracy and freedom"; to start pondering about the kind of manipulation and radicalisation Ziocorporate agents Trump/Republicans and Biden/Democrats have in store for them. Cointelpro certainly mutates far faster than Covid-1984.

Happy New World Order and Great Reset.

shylockcracy , says: January 11, 2021 at 7:17 am GMT • 9.4 hours ago
@catdog i-deep state" character is actually the opposite of:

"White House teams up with Google to build coronavirus screening site"
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/13/white-house-teams-up-with-google-to-build-coronavirus-screening-site/

What do Qtarts and the like need to realise this simple, evident facts? That the Trumpet himself comes on national TV telling you all "I and the Democrats have been playing divide and conquer with you dumbfucks for 4 years"?

Feeling that anti-deep state MAGA magick yet?

Miro23 , says: January 11, 2021 at 7:25 am GMT • 9.2 hours ago

The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian President Yanukovych in Washington's orchestrated "Maidan Revolution," called "the Revolution of Dignity" by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez, Maduro, and would like to do to Putin.

What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that real evidence no longer counts . The Establishment makes up the evidence that it needs for its agendas.

Their playbook "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" by Saul D. Alinsky, makes it clear that it's necessary to play dirty. This covers all aspects of their Regime Change projects and the current US project surely isn't any different.

It's a cocktail of lies, fabrications, subversion, threats, blackmail, false friendships – in fact any means to advance themselves.

For example: From Alinsky – "Means and Ends" His take on morality:

Rule 10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

Rule 11) Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", "Of the Common Welfare, "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace".

So yes, this is why the most unpatriotic Patriot Act is called the Patriot Act and they operate from patriotic sounding places like the American Enterprise Institute.

If traditional America is going to get anywhere in the upcoming conflict they have to get used to playing by the same rules – difficult for them – but they have to do it. It's inevitably going to be a dirty war.

Abdul Alhazred , says: January 11, 2021 at 8:01 am GMT • 8.6 hours ago

Point of order- Russia is not the historic enemy, but the orchestrated one, rather it was the Soviet Union which is the historic enemy, as the sponsors of the destruction of Russia are behind the destruction of America.

Carlos22 , says: January 11, 2021 at 8:09 am GMT • 8.5 hours ago

We are already in a police state and you can kiss goodbye to the 1st and 2nd amendment soon as free speech becomes hate speech just like they did in Europe.

So this site and many others in the alt news universe will soon be gone.

There's not going to be a civil war as the current generation of young people are too weak and distracted and have been brainwashed into hating themselves.

There's a big elephant in the room and wild card that's been missed too and that's the new covid vaccines who's long term effects on health are unknown.

Vaccines need to be studied for about 10 years before their safety can be guaranteed.

If tens / hundreds of millions are willing to be injected with a new untested genetic engineered substance that could make them disabled or kill them in 5 years to save them against something with a 99% survival rate what does that tell you about the mental state of the Population?

The US as you once knew it is finished it's just that many are still in denial or haven't realized it yet.

noname27 , says: Website January 11, 2021 at 8:34 am GMT • 8.1 hours ago

I see no civil war in the USA. I see no organisation amongst the people in order to carry it out. They have no leader, they have no Hannibal, Boadicea or Adolf to rally them together for a major insurrection against The Beast Empire. Unless of course something is brewing secretly.

A French style form of resistance, as previously mentioned in these comments, also takes a lot of planning and organisational skills, and I see no inkling of that taking place amongst American patriots.

I also believe many do not realise how serious the matter is, they still, being bogged down in irrelevant party politics.

If however a large swathe of the police and US Military including officers were to desert their corrupt masters, things would look very different and a civil war could happen.

Ilya G Poimandres , says: January 11, 2021 at 8:39 am GMT • 8.0 hours ago

The civil was has been on since Crossfire Hurricane, the usurpers of the constitution simply kept it cold because they thought they could enforce their tyranny silently.

And if Trump surrenders then they would have been proven right, at least for the leadership fight.

Biden will likely launch a war because he already has his bay of pigs with his graft, and will need a moonshot for the misdirection.

I don't think they can fight half the nation (and the military will split), and Russia at the same time, so the only question is on whom the war will be launched. I still think the odds are higher that it will be a civil war, but the Russia option looms strong for sure.

TKK , says: January 11, 2021 at 9:39 am GMT • 7.0 hours ago

The US military is the most "woke" diverse incompetent organization in America.

Remember- contractors do all the heavy lifting "in theater"- from cooking to plumbing to firefighting to IT to combat.

This knowledge is hidden from view- kept on the down low.I only know because my brother has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan for KBR for the past 15 years. I have seen him accumulate well over Half a million in cash. What does he do? He makes sure the troops have water and food. He is in logistics. For the past decade I have heard hundreds if not thousands of stories of the jaw dropping incompetence, insouciance and laziness of the American military.

Rank-and-file Americans, indeed no one, talks about this very real infrastructure that props up every dumb, overweight enlisted. About 4 contractors to every enlisted.

Most of the contractors in theater are from Eastern Europe and sub Sahara Africa. If they were given orders to release biological or chemical weapons on the American populace, as long as the huge checks were hitting their account they would do it in a heartbeat

More than the military- fear the shadow military that knows the systems, does the work .. And will do whatever it is asked as long as they are paid.

Their mother doesn't live here.

Everywhere we turn, diversity and hiring people from the "other" never works out.

*** Side note: My brother revealed that when blacks came back from their R&R after the George Floyd insanity, most of them became more aggressive and entitled. Unable to do their work because they could not stop going to report others for incidence of racism.

This includes the American black contractors and enlisted.

These are dumb young black men and women who are making $92,000 a year to move pallets around. If they were asked to stop calling in sick every day, they would run to report their supervisor for-

Racism.

Many whites have lost their lucrative positions or been subject to discipline for having the audacity to ask blacks to come to work.

It's over. It's too far gone.

[Jan 11, 2021] "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in the Hong Kong colour revolution play.

Jan 11, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

LittleWhiteCabbage , Jan 11 2021 15:19 utc | 128

@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.

[Jan 06, 2021] How Trump 'Appeased' Russia

Jan 06, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mao Cheng Ji , Jan 6 2021 18:18 utc | 1

Two years ago we have written about the Trump's relation with Russia:

Putin Asks And Trump Delivers - A List Of All The Good Things Trump Did For Russia

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?

U.S. to withdraw from nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, raising fears of a new arms race - Washington Post, Feb 1 2019

Putin says U.S.-Russia relations are getting 'worse and worse' - Reuters, Jun 13 2019

Green Berets train Polish, Latvian resistance units in West Virginia - Army Times, Jul 8 2019

Trump Adds to Sanctions on Russia Over Skripals - NYT, Aug 1 2019

INF nuclear treaty: US pulls out of Cold War-era pact with Russia - BBC, Aug 2 2019

US Slaps New Sanctions on Russia for 2018 Nerve Agent Attack - Daily Signal, Aug 2 2019

1000 U.S.Troops Are Headed to Poland - National Interest, Sep 29 2019

U.S. sanctions Russians over attempted interference in 2018 elections - CBS News, Sep 30 2019

US formally withdraws from Open Skies Treaty that bolstered European security - CNN, Nov 22 2020

Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline - BBC, Dec 21 2019

Trump sanctions Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company, for aiding Maduro in Venezuela - MSN, Feb 19 2020

Russia Says New U.S. Weapon Threatens Nuclear War - Newsweek, Mar 7 2020

Trump Continues to Be Exceedingly Tough on Russia - Townhall, Jul 25 2020

U.S.-Russia Military Tensions Intensify in the Air and on the Ground Worldwide - NYT, Sep 1 2020

White House rejects Putin's proposal to extend last U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty - LA Times, Oct 16 2020

U.S., Russian Navies Involved In Brief Confrontation At Sea - NPR, Nov 24 2020

US sanctions NATO ally Turkey over Russian missile defense - AP, Dec 14 2020

Pompeo accuses Russia of sowing 'chaos' in the Mediterranean - Rawstory, Dec 15 2020

Exclusive: U.S. preparing new sanctions to impede Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline - Reuters, Dec 23 2020

As we have written before :

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.

Not.

Posted by b at 18:01 UTC | Comments (3)

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.


arby , Jan 6 2021 18:24 utc | 2

n one of the comments that I read yesterday some Russian told another one who is sanctioned by the US that that is a badge of honour.

Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 , Jan 6 2021 18:43 utc | 3

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!

Abe , Jan 6 2021 18:51 utc | 4

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.

[Jan 06, 2021] The whole point of US and Western MSM obsession with demonizing Russia is to divert public attention away from the crisis of neoliberalism at home

Jan 06, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 , Jan 6 2021 18:43 utc | 3

Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the Russian émigrés mafia that had relocated to the US in south Queens in New York City. A major difference!


Jen , Jan 6 2021 20:01 utc | 17

Of course the whole point of US and Western MSM obsession with demonising Russia and China, and castigating those like Trump (for not going far enough to oppose either one or the other nation, or both), is to divert public attention away from govt failings at home and to push the public into supporting regime change against both Russia and China.

B's post should be read as a companion piece to his previous post on China as an existential threat to the US, as an example of a nation that achieved stability, peace and enough prosperity for most of its people by pursuing an alternate political and economic ideology in the space of 40 years. An ideology that moreover challenges the ideology that the West has followed for the past 500 years, and the assumptions on which that ideology is based. Despite Western attempts to destabilise, break up and impoverish Russia in the 1990s, in order to steal its energy and mineral resources, that nation managed to bounce back to some level of stability and economic security. In addition Russia and China signed a friendship treaty in 2001 and are committing to a closer political ans economic relationship.

All this serves to marginalise the Anglosphere nations and to deny the US, the UK and their elites the opportunity to plunder these nations and their allies for their natural resources.

uncle tungsten , Jan 6 2021 20:25 utc | 21

Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 #3

Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the russian emigrée mafia that had relocatet to the US in south Quens in New York City. A maijor difference!

Exactly that, thank you. The mafia that manages the D party are of Mediterranean roots and are totally pi$$ed of with the Russians.

Enough of this polite avoidance of the reality of the USAi gangland - it is a mafia state. The D 'reformist' squad just blew their best chance to start the reformation. They will be neutered well before another chance arises.

Jackrabbit , Jan 6 2021 20:28 utc | 23

Trump appeased . . . NOT is only half the story.

AFAICT Russiagate's neo-McCarthyism and Trump's supposed friendliness toward Putin was a set up prior to Trump negotiations with Putin at Helsinki.

"I'm your only friend ... and your last best hope ..." is a powerful pitch - especially when it is accompanied by generous offers of aid and support. And perhaps it would've worked if it had come years before.

So now we have a new Cold War - with both Russia and China.

!!

[Jan 02, 2021] Tulsi Gabbard slams COVID relief bill as a 'slap in the face' to Americans - YouTube

Jan 02, 2021 | www.youtube.com



liveltoob
, 6 days ago

She voted against the bill because she's smart and she actually reads things

Joseph Klimchock , 6 days ago

Congress has failed the American people again and again. They do almost nothing, we might actually be better if they did NOTHING!!!!!

Shawn Cornell , 1 week ago

One of the few dems that talks sensibly. That's why the communist dems kept changing the rules to keep her out of the debates.

EAZY-E Zero , 5 days ago

Respectfully, Tulsi Gabbard could have been a better candidate than Joe Biden. That's just my opinion.

Jn Stonbely , 3 days ago

Bravo Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for putting it to the "Demagogue" Party for their deviousness, lies, and clearly ; anti-American behavior !


Kai Chinn
, 6 days ago

I like Tulsi, she actually has a head on her shoulders and actually cares about the American People! Aaaaand, she is not hard on the eyes either! :)

boonarga , 6 days ago

Gabbard represents what Democrats were before they became evil.


chiefordnance
, 4 hours ago

As a Republican Tulsi was the only Democrat I was rooting for, the Democrats destroyed her because she wasn't part of their agenda.


Brian Hariprashad
, 2 days ago

She embodies what a true good democrat is idk what's up with the rest of the party, she has my vote


What Is Your Worldview? - Creation or Evolutionism?
, 6 days ago

In a world of [neo]liberalism, it is the VICTIM that gets punished, not the criminals.

[Jan 02, 2021] PATRICK LAWRENCE- Trump's Foreign Policy Explained Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... International Herald Tribune ..."
"... Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. ..."
Jan 02, 2021 | consortiumnews.com

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.

Jerry Alatalo , December 30, 2020 at 16:52

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.

Peace.

Patrick Lawrence , December 30, 2020 at 14:32

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

[Dec 30, 2020] The Unaccountable Nation by Danny Sjursen

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure -- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse. ..."
Mar 16, 2020 | www.truthdig.com
Exceptionalism, triumphalism, chauvinism. These characteristics define most empires, including, like it or not, these United States . The sequence matters. A people and national government that fancies itself exceptional -- an example for the rest of the world -- is apt to assert itself militarily, economically, and culturally around the globe. If that self-righteous state happens to possess prodigious power, as the U.S. has since the Second World War, then any perceived success will lead to a sense of triumphalism, and thus put into motion a feedback loop whereby national "achievement" justifies and validates that conception of exceptionalism.

Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure -- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse.

Such imperial hyper-powers, particularly in their late-stages, often employ foot soldiers across vast swathes of the planet, and eventually either lose control of their actions or aren't concerned with their resultant atrocities in the first place. On that, the jury is perhaps still out. Regardless, the discomfiting fact is that by nearly any measure, the United States today coheres, to a remarkable degree, with each and every one of these tenets of empire evolution. This includes, despite the hysterical denials of sitting political and Pentagon leaders, the troubling truth that American soldiers and intelligence agents have committed war crimes across the Greater Middle East since 9/11 on a not so trivial number of occasions. These law of war violations also occurred during the Cold War generation -- notably in Korea and Vietnam -- and the one consistent strain has been the almost complete inability or unwillingness of the U.S. Government to hold perpetrators, and their enabling commanders, accountable.

Enter the International Criminal Court (ICC). First proposed , conceptually, in 1919 (and again in 1937, 1948, and 1971), in response to massive war crimes and human rights violations of the two world wars, the Hague-headquartered court finally opened for business in 2002. With more than 120 signatory member states (though not, any longer, the U.S.) the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute international violations including "genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression." A compliment, rather than a replacement, to sovereign national justice systems, the ICC is designed to be the "court of last resort," obliged to exercise jurisdiction only when a nation's courts prove unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes.

All of which sounds both admirable and unthreatening (at least to reasonably well-behaved states with accountable, responsive justice systems), but to the contemporary American imperial hyper-power, the very existence of the ICC is viewed as a mortal threat. Matters demonstrably came to a head this past week when an ICC appeals court reversed a lower-level decision and allowed its special prosecutor -- whose visa Washington has already revoked -- to simply open an official investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by all three major parties to the conflict: the Taliban, U.S., and U.S.-backed Kabul-based Afghan government. This decidedly mild decision, which only allows a multi-directional inquiry , unleashed an immediate firestorm in Washington.

The reflexive reactions and responses of current and former Trump officials was both instructive and totally in line with decades worth of bipartisan U.S. disavowal of the very notion of international norms and standards. Trump's recent hawkish national security adviser, John Bolton -- now an MSNBC-DNC darling for his apparent critique of the president in a new memoir -- has spearheaded opposition to the ICC since its inception, has asserted that the ICC is "illegitimate," and that the U.S. Government "will not sit quietly," if "the court comes after us." After the most recent ruling, Secretary of State (and former director of the very CIA that is likely to be implicated in said war crimes investigation) Mike Pompeo declared the ruling a "truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body," adding, threateningly, that "we will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, unlawful, so-called court."

On that latter point, Pompeo is neither wrong, nor espousing a policy -- no matter how aggressive or rejectionist -- unique to Donald Trump's administration. Here, a brief bit of all but forgotten history is in order. In 1998, the UN General Assembly voted 120-7 to establish the ICC. The United States, in good company with a gaggle of criminally compromised states -- China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Yemen, and Qatar -- voted against the measure. Two years later, however, President Bill Clinton unenthusiastically signed onto this foundational Rome Statute , but with some dubiousness and the requisite American exceptionalist caveat that he "will not, and do not recommend that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."

Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This tragedy turned (for then ascendant neoconservatives) opportunity for expanded U.S. military global assertiveness, ensured that Clinton's successor -- one George W. Bush -- wouldn't even consider ICC treaty submission to the Senate. Rather, in May 2002, Bush sent a note to the UN Secretary General informing him that the most powerful and influential country in the world no longer intended to ratify the Rome Statute or recognize any obligations to the ICC (which officially opened for business only two months later ). Never simply a morality tale of Republican villainy, Bush's disavowal didn't explain the half of it.

Far more disturbingly, a stunningly euphemistic American Service-members' Protection Act of 2001 amendment, first introduced just 15 days after the 9/11 attacks, to the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, was already under consideration in Congress. With broad bipartisan majorities, that legislation -- which authorized the U.S. president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" -- passed in the House a couple weeks after Bush sent his note to the UN, and the Senate just two weeks later. President Bush then signed this authorization for, up to and including military, force into law on August 2, 2002. Much of the world was appalled and international human rights organizations took to – quite appropriately – calling it the " Hague Invasion Act ." It remains in force today.

The timeline is instructive and itself tells a vital part of the story. Democrats and Republicans alike had chosen to "preempt" -- an internationally prohibited precedent that Bush would later invoke to invade Iraq -- the not yet in force ICC with this bill. They did so, I'd assert, because they knew a salient dirty secret: the U.S. was about to unleash martial fury across the Greater Middle East. In the process, inevitably, American troopers and intelligence spooks would push the limits of acceptable wartime behavior, and thus be vulnerable to international prosecution by the soon effective ICC.

This was unacceptable for an exceptionalist, triumphalist nation, about to undertake chauvinist actions the world over. That unilateral, world-order-be-damned national position held, and still holds, sway in the intervening 18 years. So, for all the Trump administration's coarse obtuseness in response to the opening of the latest ICC Afghan investigation, this is, at root, not (as the mainstream media will inevitably now claim) a Donald phenomenon.Three administrations, and multiple guard-changing Congresses, chose to not to touch the infamous Hague Invasion Act or realign the U.S. with the ICC or the spirit (or even the pretense) of international law.

The cast of elite characters, many still politically influential, who voted for the Hague Invasion Act is nothing short of astounding. The bill passed the House by a margin of 280-138, and counted such "yea" votes as House Intelligence Committee Chair -- top Trump opponent and Russiagate investigator -- Democrat Adam Schiff. Notably, especially in this ongoing electoral cycle, then Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders opposed the measure.In the Senate , an even larger portion of Democrats joined current Speaker Mitch McConnell (and most of his Republican caucus), to vote for the Act. These included such past and present notables as former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, current Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and, then Foreign Relations Committee Chair, and now Democratic presidential frontrunner, Joe Biden. His vote, naturally, should come as scant surprise since even in early Senate committee hearings four years earlier, ranking minority member Biden was at best tepid, and at worst quite skeptical of the ICC – even finding unlikely points of agreement with the later Hague Invasion Bill's sponsor, and longtime unilateralist hawk, Republican Senator Jesse Helms.

Still, the swift, frenetic response of senior Trump officials to ICC decision is telling. I suspect that Pompeo and Bolton know the inconvenient truth – that U.S. national security forces have committed crimes in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) and that the U.S. Government hasn't ever truly held these select perpetrators sufficiently accountable. Contra Pompeo, Bolton, and other Trump officials' ardent public assertions, the U.S. military and intelligence community are, in fact – due to being demonstrably "unwilling or unable to prosecute such [war] crimes" – the perfect candidates for ICC investigation, and if evidentiary appropriate, prosecution. The U.S. has a historically abysmal record either of restraining or punishing wartime violations.

The rarely recounted record is an extensive as it is appalling:

Add to that the disconcerting fact that the U.S. crossed a rather macabre tipping point in 2019, whereby, for the first time, the American military and its Afghan allies killed more civilians than the Taliban, and this brings us full circle to an alarming present reality. The very figures who championed and supported the wildly chauvinistic "Hague Invasion" Act seem set to hold sway over, and in Biden's case serve as candidate for, the Democratic Party.In November, that faction will likely, then face off against a Trump team that vehemently opposes even a basic investigation into alleged American criminal misbehavior in the Afghan theater of its ongoing forever wars.

All of which demonstrates, once and for all, that human rights, and international law or norms were never of genuine interest to the United States. None of this will play well on the "Arab," or even broader global, "Street," and will – just like U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo – actually increase worldwide "terrorism" and anti-Americanism. None of which matters to, or greatly concerns, a Washington elite lacking even a modicum of self-awareness.

Because empires, like the United States, which peddle in exceptionalism, triumphalism, and chauvinism are, historically, the world's true rogue states .

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and a contributing editor at antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available for pre-order . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.

Danny Sjursen / Truthdig

[Dec 30, 2020] The Building Blocks of a Restraint Coalition by DANIEL LARISON

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Sep 23, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

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.

  1. There are the "traditional internationalists" that don't want to reduce U.S. forces overseas and want to remain in international institutions,
  2. And then there are the "hard power primacists" that have no use for institutions and treaties but want to dominate militarily.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 .


kouroi 18 hours ago

Did it ever mattered what the majority of the US public thinks and wants?

Tom Riddle 17 hours ago • edited
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.

Alan Vanneman 8 hours ago

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.

Feral Finster 6 hours ago

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?

rayray Feral Finster 2 hours ago

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.

kouroi rayray 2 hours ago

Never mind the NSA that can blackmail everyone out there...

kouroi 6 hours ago

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:

https://www.moonofalabama.o...

MPC 3 hours ago

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.

rayray MPC 2 hours ago

Agree with this as well...but the scorched earth identity politics of Trump have set back the dream of a centrist "peace party" for a quite a time.

[Dec 24, 2020] The Revenge Agenda by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... 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 is ..."
Dec 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

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 is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

Verymuchalive , says: December 22, 2020 at 11:03 am GMT • 16.3 hours ago

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.

Sick of Orcs , says: December 22, 2020 at 11:04 am GMT • 16.3 hours ago

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.

[Dec 24, 2020] Reckless Threats and 'Restoring Deterrence' by DANIEL LARISON

Dec 24, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

DECEMBER 23, 2020

When hawks in the U.S. and Israeli governments talk about "restoring deterrence," what they really mean is that they want to commit acts of aggression but present them as defensive actions.

The president made more reckless threats against Iran today:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1341862955604975617&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Fstate-of-the-union%2Freckless-threats-and-restoring-deterrence%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

me title=

When the president illegally ordered the assassination of Soleimani in January of this year, administration officials eventually lined up behind the excuse that it was intended to "restore deterrence" against rocket attacks from Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. Even though these attacks have continued throughout the year much the same as before, we are back to the same old tired issuing of threats of military action in response to attacks that would not be happening if it were not for the president's own reckless actions. As the anniversary of the Soleimani assassination approaches, we are once again drifting towards an avoidable and unnecessary conflict.

Were it not for the president's "maximum pressure" campaign, U.S. forces in Iraq would face far fewer risks than they do today, and conflict between our governments would be much less likely. Had it not been for the president's decision to order the illegal and provocative attack that killed Soleimani and an Iraqi militia leader, tensions between the U.S. and Iran would not be as great as they are now. Trump's approach to Iran for the last two and a half years has been to pick a fight and then blame the other side for responding to his provocations. Far from deterring attacks from Iranian-backed militias and the Iranian military itself, the Trump administration has been provoking and inviting them. It is mostly a matter of luck that this has not yet triggered a larger conflict.

For its part, the Israeli government is also raising the temperature by sending one of its submarines through the Suez Canal to signal its readiness to respond to retaliation for its murder of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh:

An Israeli submarine has embarked for the Persian Gulf in possible preparation for any Iranian retaliation over the November assassination of a senior Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Israeli media reported.

The above-water, fully visible Israeli deployment into the Suez Canal and then the Red Sea was a rare move that was reportedly carried out with the acquiescence of Egyptian authorities and was seen as a clear warning to Iran that Israel was preparing for battle as hostilities continue to rise.

The deployment of the Israeli submarine is described as a "message of deterrence," but it is in fact the result of an ill-advised and illegal attack inside Iran. Had the Israelis not carried out a terrorist attack on Iranian soil, they would not now be worried about possible retaliation. This gets at a basic problem with the hawkish framing of our news coverage related to Iran and the constant misuse of the concept of deterrence by both the U.S. and Israeli governments.

First Panel, TAC's 7th Annual Foreign Policy Conference What Does 2020 Mean For Foreign Policy 00:07 / 01:00 3

When hawks in the U.S. and Israeli governments talk about "restoring deterrence," what they really mean is that they want to commit acts of aggression but present them as defensive actions. Blowing up Soleimani had nothing to do with deterring future attacks, and we can see that it has failed to deter them. Murdering Fakhrizadeh definitely had nothing to do with deterring anything. It was just a gratuitous killing that the Israel government did because they could. Now both the U.S. and Israel find that they have to make additional shows of force and issue new threats to ward off possible responses to these earlier aggressive acts. Instead of making them more secure, these aggressive acts have exposed Americans and Israelis to greater risks than they faced earlier on.

In light of reports that the president has asked for military options for attacking Iran and reports that Israel has been preparing for such an eventuality, we have to take the possibility of a U.S. or joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran seriously. There is absolutely no justification for such an attack, but that is no guarantee that it won't happen. It needs to be emphasized that none of this would be happening if the Trump administration had not taken the reckless and destructive step of reneging on the JCPOA and launching an economic war on Iran. Whatever happens in the next few weeks can be traced back to that, and the president is responsible for the consequences.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

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 .

[Dec 24, 2020] 'Forward Defense' Has Nothing to Do with Defense -

Dec 24, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

he Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) recently released a lengthy report that predictably advocates for an aggressive and activist foreign policy that they euphemistically dub "defending forward." Like the British imperial "Forward Policy" that it calls to mind and resembles, so-called forward defense seeks to justify interventionism and open-ended warfare in far-flung parts of the world in the name of national security. The essays included in the report warn against "retrenchment" and repeatedly attack advocates of foreign policy restraint in dishonest and misleading ways, and they sound all the usual alarms about the supposed perils of extricating the U.S. from its many unnecessary foreign wars. These arguments are neither new nor particularly interesting, but they can't be ignored because of the significant influence that their purveyors continue to have in Washington and in the Republican Party in particular. If we are going to build a foreign policy of peace and restraint, these arguments have to be answered and discredited.

Panetta sets the tone for the document right away: "More than ever, Americans must go abroad to remain secure at home." This is the interventionists' axiom from which everything else follows, so it is important to start by explaining how wrong it is. To the extent that American security is threatened by other states and terrorist organizations, a forward policy invites more attacks and challenges and exacerbates the dangers it is supposedly combating. Our militarized engagement in many parts of the world is simultaneously destabilizing and provocative, and it makes us far more enemies than we would have otherwise.

me title=

Forward deployments make U.S. troops targets, and those deployments then become ends in themselves. Putting these troops in harm's way for decades isn't making Americans any safer, and the "war on terror" has led to the metastasization of terrorist groups on two continents. The forward "defense" that interventionists believe is so critical to our security is at best a redundant waste of lives and resources. At worst, it is sowing seeds for future attacks on Americans and our allies, and it is doing so at enormous expense. Sending troops to the other side of the world is not necessary to keep Americans safe at home. "Defending forward" has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with power projection and domination.

H.R. McMaster joined FDD shortly after being fired from his position as National Security Advisor, and in the last two years he has been attacking restrainers and promoting aggressive policies in a number of prominent articles. His contribution to the FDD report is a previously published Foreign Affairs article called "The Retrenchment Syndrome." As the title suggests, McMaster sees advocates of restraint (or "retrenchment hard-liners" as he calls them) as suffering from a dangerous malady, and his only prescription is more foreign entanglements. I have previously answered McMaster's arguments here , but I will add a few more remarks. McMaster wrongly accuses restrainers of "national narcissism," but he demonstrates no ability to understand the views of his domestic opponents or the thinking of the foreign adversaries whose motives he claims to know. He supports U.S. dominance and power projection in the world, and so he assumes that other major powers must have the same goal, but this is just an alibi for pursuing the aggressive policies that he already favors.

Misunderstanding and misrepresenting the views of restrainers is a running theme in the report. Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer are some of the worst offenders. They can't stop themselves from dubbing Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer "realists-cum-isolationists," which is as insulting to them as it is wildly inaccurate. Both of those scholars favor a strategy involving offshore balancing, and Mearsheimer is rather hawkish on China, but they want to reduce the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East and that is unacceptable to FDD. That is why they are branded with the i-word. Dubowitz and Schanzer also mock the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft for supposedly not understanding the foreign policy views of John Quincy Adams, but this just shows how eager they are to distort the views of non-interventionists both past and present. Their contribution is long on accusations of isolationism without offering any evidence, but then this is the point of the isolationist smear. It is never meant to describe, only to distort and vilify, and they resort to this because they are afraid to engage restrainer arguments on the merits.

Like some melodramatic villain from a superhero movie, they declare, "History, unfortunately, is a forever war." One gets the impression that they do not really regard this as misfortune, but rather see it as an opportunity. Yes, history is full of conflicts, but there is far more to our history than warfare, and one thing we should have learned from all those conflicts is how pointless and unnecessary most of them have been. At the very least, we should know to steer clear from aggressive policies that make such conflicts more likely. The Trump administration Iran policy that FDD has championed for years has done just that, and that is one of many reasons why we should regard their recommendations with suspicion.

First Panel, TAC's 7th Annual Foreign Policy Conference What Does 2020 Mean For Foreign Policy 00:06 / 01:00 1

Their account of the recent past is no better than their tedious comparisons with the 1930s. They write, "Al-Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks despite America's best efforts to steer clear of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda was and is based." This is mind-boggling revisionism, conveniently ignoring that the attacks were carried out in large part in response to the continued U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and U.S. support for the despotic government there. Dubowitz and Schanzer point to the clearest example of disastrous blowback in modern U.S. history and then have the gall to say that this example supports their argument for keeping U.S. forces permanently deployed in other countries where they aren't wanted.

Not surprisingly, the consistent misreadings and distortions of history are some of the biggest flaws in the report. Bradley Bowman and Clifford May rattle off historical "facts" about wars throughout history that elide far more than they reveal. For instance, they speak of "Persian-Roman wars" running from the battle of Carrhae between the Roman Republic and the Parthians to the battle of Nineveh in the seventh century between the Byzantines and the Sasanians. That lumps together many different regimes and dynasties in very crude fashion, and it also misleads the reader into thinking that conflict was incessant when it was not.

While there were many wars between these two powers over the course of seven hundred years, these two states were at peace with each other for the vast majority of that period of time. Indeed, for most of Byzantine history, the emperors in Constantinople were wary of engaging in open warfare and sought to avoid it as much as possible because of the cost and the potential for disaster. This strategy did not invite aggression, and it succeeded in allowing the empire to husband its resources and preserve its strength. One could say that the Byzantines usually practiced responsible statecraft. That is one reason why their empire managed to endure for as long as it did.

Treating war as being essentially unavoidable, Bowman and May belittle restrainers for "stunning ignorance" in calling to end U.S. involvement in its foreign wars today. This amounts to little more than mindless fatalism in accepting that the U.S. is bound to be at war much more often than not. But constant warfare and the strategy that undergirds it are both choices. Vietnam was completely avoidable for the U.S. and also entirely unnecessary for U.S. security, just as our current wars are all wars of choice. Conflict may be an ineradicable part of the human condition, but it doesn't follow that any particular conflict has to happen or that we are fated to participate in it when it does.

There may always be some conflict somewhere (though there has been much less of it in recent decades), but nowhere is it written that a major power has to be at war all of the time, much less in multiple places around the globe. The empires that have engaged in constant warfare have tended to suffer bankruptcy and ruin. Many of these states were governed by men who also believed that peripheral interests were worth fighting over, and they ultimately exhausted themselves in fruitless conflicts.

The U.S. is unusual among great powers in history in that it is relatively separated from its rivals by great distance, but it still chooses to entangle itself in the affairs of distant regions instead of taking advantage of our favorable geography. While modern technologies have reduced the importance of that advantage, they have not eliminated it. America is, in fact, extraordinarily secure from foreign threats, and so it becomes necessary to inflate these threats and overstate the capabilities of other states to make the case for a "forward" policy.

Writing for The New Republic , Jacob Silverman sums up the report very well:

That is the purpose of "Defending Forward": to contort the English language to convince a war-weary public that there is no alternative but to continue the status quo of "forward defense-in-depth military deployments," as Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and defense secretary, euphemistically calls them. But the FDD publication succeeds only in reminding us that, after 19 years of a catastrophic, immoral, illegal war on terror, America's hawks are simply out of answers.

The U.S. has been following something like a "forward defense" strategy for decades. The results have been almost twenty years of expensive failed wars that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The U.S. desperately needs to change its strategy and practice restraint in its use of force and the deployment of its armed forces. America does not need to police and dominate the world to be secure, and the sooner we all realize that the better it will be for our country and for the rest of the world. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

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 .

email

[Dec 23, 2020] China Russia listed as main rivals in new US maritime strategy aimed at shaping 'balance of power for the rest of the centu

Dec 23, 2020 | www.rt.com

Conversation 244 Comments Please read the RT Community Commenting Rules here Log In


Sort by Best


Ghanima223 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:27 AM

All power is in the end economic. The US can build 500 warships, the Chinese can easily match that, but unlike the US, they also can pay for it.
Tor Gjesdal Ghanima223 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 06:14 PM
No, hehe, all Powers are not all in the end economic. We can be good at economicing life some of us, but Most have no clue about all the real Powers.
KlausR922 Ghanima223 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 09:43 AM
Russia and China do not have enough fleet to populate the oceans around the US but have more immigrants in the US. Instead, attracting foreign funds or investors (even through mixed marriages) destabilizes their own economies. This suggests, however, that the 'balance of power' remains to the advantage of the US. In fact, if we are all capitalists, what is the significance of this balance?
Jewel Gyn 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:21 AM
"the two most significant threats to this era of global peace and prosperity," Look at yourself in the mirror. US is without doubt the biggest threat to global peace and prosperity. The only reason countries are silent is because of your military and economic might. But it won't be for long...
GorillaBalls Jewel Gyn 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 08:59 AM
USA is building useless junk more fitting to the times of Neanderthals and definitely obsolete in the 21st century with borrowed money. Nothing mighty about that.
GorillaBalls Jewel Gyn 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 08:54 AM
USA no longer has a mighty economy. Has the world's biggest debt mountain instead along with a permanently concussed military by Iran!! Clown.
Iwanasay 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 04:07 AM
This report says it all, the US objective is to dominate the world, not be a part of it, it also proves that the US is military dictatorship where politicians are only elected to channel huge sums of taxpayers money into the Pentagon and military industry purse. Hurry up China and Russia, form a military alliance and bankrupt the US as it wastes more & more against non-existent enemies
Fjack1415 Iwanasay 1 day ago 21 Dec, 2020 01:25 PM
Yeah, the Star Wars strategy supposedly used by Pres. Reagan to bankrupt Soviet Russia, now can be used against the US. The US needs to spend about ten times what Russia or China spend in order to achieve the same result (if that) and what is more, it is borrowed money.
GorillaBalls Iwanasay 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 09:27 AM
Joetex America is obsolete already.
Dachaguy 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:13 AM
Balance? The US has no interest at all in balance. The US focus is domination. It's what the Project for a New American Century was all about.
liana sammartino Dachaguy 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 09:05 AM
and that domination in this century will evaporate....
Isiah Steele Dachaguy 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 08:00 AM
Except, China and Russia and the rest of the real free world has their own plans for the future without the US!!!!
shadow1369 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:55 AM
Us regime calls its own relentless aggression 'assertive policy', and accuses anybody who resists their global tyranny a 'threat to peace'. Nothing new.
GorillaBalls 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:37 AM
USA has been saying the same thing and has been spending the most money on its military but the reality is it has never won a war with a major military beyond own shore.
Joetex GorillaBalls 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 07:04 AM
All wars the US has fought have been beyond its own Shores including WWI and WWII, which by the way were victorious.
GreenPizza804 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:03 AM
"Our actions in this decade will shape the maritime balance of power for the rest of this century." they think Russia and China don't have any plan to this ?
Joetex GreenPizza804 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 06:56 AM
It's to late Trumps Trillion Dollar Plan in 2018 went to Mostly Navy and Space Force. And Already is more Advanced than China and Russia Combined.
shadow1369 GreenPizza804 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 06:02 AM
In the Project for a New American Century, the US version of Mein Kampf, the warmongers preached 'full spectrum dominance'. They remind me of the last days of the nazis, deploying non existant armies to fend off the fast approaching allied powers. Any pretence of US global hegemony was destroyed in Syria.
wawya 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:36 AM
The USA is the greatest threat to all countries yet masquerades as a friend to many. Make no mistake, it is an ally only when it suits. China has asperations on having a blue water navy but is a fair way off. Russia, apart from its SSN & SSBN boats is very much a green water navy. The Americans are kidding themselves.
Mickey Mic 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:30 AM
Let's not forget, the central banks can't operate with the current market status, hence, the delay in Nancy's relief tactics. War is imminent for the survival of banking cartels, Trump denied the banks wars, so cheat Trump out of office was is the highest demand for the Federal Reserve banking system. They needed a compromised President to bend to their will, Joe was picked for the Job due to his corrupt career and dysfunctional mentality . Bernie was cheated (No charges) Trump has been surrounded by disloyal shape-shifting swamp monsters, his proof of voter Fraud is meaningless in the land of oil & vinegar. Biden was illegally installed to launch wars & secure the final stages of the Wuhan virus (Forced Vaccinations). Let's face it, Biden's choices for Cabinet positions line directly with Hillary Clinton's friends, he is not in charge to make any choices on his own. He is supplying an empty shell to fill the oval office for the shadow Gov. The majority of US leadership thinks they'll be safe inside Cheyenne Mountain to protect their own sacred seed from destruction. PS: From the counterfeit Supreme Court, to the Masonic lodges better known as the "House of senators & Congressman"...Lurks a perpetual centrifugal motion to consume their greedy desolation.
Galaxy31 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:32 AM
As US looses global dominance, the more desperate it becomes. This time though, it doesn't look it will work, but unfortunately because of this desperation, it may end up tragically for all of us human beings.
GorillaBalls Galaxy31 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:27 AM
"The US Navy will adopt a more 'assertive' approach to China and Russia, according to the country's new maritime strategy, which says that actions taken in the next decade will determine power dynamics for the rest of the century." Making big talk about the future with 20th century and OBSOLETE aircraft carries that can be quickly sent to the bottom with a few comparatively much cheaper hypersonic carrier killer missiles those tubs are DEFENCELESS against.
straightasarrow69 Galaxy31 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:15 AM
America spends more on their military than the next 10 nations combined. More engineers graduate in China every year than exist in the whole of America. America believes it needs to manufacture enemies to prop up its main export, death and destruction. This further explains why some American politicians have stated, "if an Israel did not exist we would have to invent one." Birds of a feather. Time to diversify Americas economy. China, Russia, and America are brothers.

[Dec 20, 2020] Continuation of neocons wars for Full Spectrum Dominance is the ultimate goal of the Coronavirus putsch

Notable quotes:
"... The neocon criminals have managed to take over foreign policy in the U.S., leveraging money power from their bankster backers. ..."
"... Their latest gambit is the Coronavirus putsch ..."
Dec 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Dec 18 2020 20:28 utc | 1

it seems the purpose of the usa media is in large part to keep the masses riled up over cheering or booing for team red or team blue... speaking of which, i haven't seen one of the cheerleaders here lately...


Haassaan , Dec 19 2020 0:48 utc | 20

Yes, this RussiaGate story will flame out, just like all the rest, but ultimately these stories aren't about Trump, but about setting the stage for the Biden Administration to attack Russia. It doesn't matter that they are all lies, what matters is that the big pile of lies as a whole creates a false reality in which anti-Russian propaganda is so overwhelming that nobody in the west can see outside of the delusion.

norecovery , Dec 19 2020 1:51 utc | 22

The neocon criminals have managed to take over foreign policy in the U.S., leveraging money power from their bankster backers. The latter is a tiny group of oligarchs and their network of highly-paid promoters that are motivated to force U.S. hegemony onto the world. They now have control over the U.S. Congress, Intelligence Agencies, and the MSM, and are increasingly exerting censorship over social media.

Their latest gambit is the Coronavirus putsch using bio-warfare agents to undermine small-scale economies and autonomy, while imposing vast corporate ownership of property.

Worldwide compliance is the goal using a wide range of military, financial, and media control measures to crush dissent. The pharma-promoted vaccinations that are questionable at best reinforce those controls and are part of the plot. We are witnessing a worldwide COUPS ATTEMPT, UBER-Fascism that exceeds all historical examples. Will it succeed?

Fyi , Dec 19 2020 2:35 utc | 26

Mr. Norecovery

Euro-Americans, hiding behind the so-called Neo-con facade, failed in their goals in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

They succeeded in Libya, however.

Americans will have sunk more than 8 trillion dollars before the next decade is out for their venture against Islam.

They have been stopped because of Iran and the Shia Muslims.

The way things are going, Americans are going to be stopped in East Asia with the coming China-Taiwan War as well.

ak74 , Dec 19 2020 4:59 utc | 32

"Yes, he killed foreigners. But no U.S. president will ever be indicted for that. It is seen as a part of the job."

Yes, committing war crimes and "crimes against peace"--the supreme international crime as asserted by the Nuremberg Tribunal--is fundamental to the job description of being America's War-Criminal-in-Chief.

The fact that Americans and citizens in other self-styled "democracies" deny this uncomfortable reality, or support these war crimes, says a lot about their own criminality.

Debsisdead , Dec 19 2020 7:39 utc | 34

@m #33 said

""Lock him up!" It's amazing how often the two political camps in the USA are mirror images of each other."

Sure the scumbag politicians shout "Lock 'em up" at their opponents but that is just the usual divisive partisan nonsense, they spout knowing that they have no intention of locking anyone up. Why? because they know better than anyone that they have pulled exactly the same illegal immorality as the other 'side' and the last thing needed is any such precedent.

By spreading that unfulfilled tosh they hope to negate the popular movement which needs to happen if amerikans are ever going to extricate themselves from the fate of all empires that once were, a millenia of misery e.g watch what is currently happening in england.
If actual ordinary amerikans have a chance of saving what can be preserved it is on to them as citizens to hold the entire ruling elite to account. this must be done regardless of any claimed political affiliation or claimed 'neutrality'.

Anyone who spends more than about 30 minutes objectively assessing the stunts amerika has been pulling since 1945 (much before really, but let's just use 1945 as a cutoff) sees that it is amerika which has been the force for just about all the evil in our world. A handful of sops to the faint-hearted bourgeoisie, eg. finally acknowledging the evil of apartheid South Africa right as the racist's downfall becomes inevitable doesn't excuse a thing. All such stunts demonstrate is the greed driven amorality of amerika's elite.

If they spouted in the 60's, 70's & 80's that allowing the apartheid government of South Africa to continue was a pragmatic call to prevent a bloodbath, yet a much needed change did occur in the early 90's with no bloodbath, blind Freddie can see they got it wrong then just as they are getting it wrong now about apartheid Occupied Palestine.

Yet they still continue, Why? The only conclusion can be that both gangs the dims & the rethugs are going where there is a dollar to be made, just as happened with South Africa.

Insisting that all 3 arms of amerikan government be taken out of the picture regardless of whatever gang the claim allegiance to is not 'more of the same'.
If it occurred it would be an indication that all non-elite amerikans have lost faith in the farcical, allegedly loyal, but in fact only to themselves, congress people, senators, prezes & vice prezes and judges that regularly behave towards 99% of amerikans so contemptuously that the corporate owned media have to expend so much resources distracting Jo/Joe Citizen from.

It won't make much difference to me in my lifetime but it will to my offspring. If amerikans don't sort this out for themselves, my kids or more likely my grankids will have to do the job.

History teaches us that no matter how bloody things can get when a population stands up to its masters, just going with the flow until the boil comes to a head and is then 'lanced' by outside forces, is much worse for everyone. The hardest hit being the citizens of the once domineering nation.

Amerikans have the best knowledge of who the crooks are, if they won't sort the problem because they have been distracted into more partisan tosh such as "they all cry lock 'em up" ; it is they ordinary amerikans, who will finish up paying the piper.

[Dec 20, 2020] Et tu, Brutus?

Dec 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Dec 19 2020 13:39 utc | 40

Et tu, Brutus?

Pompeo Claims Russia is 'Pretty Clearly' Behind Major Hack Attack on US

[Dec 13, 2020] "The Century of The Common Man"

Dec 13, 2020 | archive.org

"The march of freedom of the past one hundred and fifty years has been a long-drawn-out people's revolution. In this Great Revolution of the people, there were the American Revolution of 1775, The French Revolution of 1792, The Latin-American revolutions of the Bolivarian era, The German Revolution of 1848, and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Each spoke for the common man in terms of blood on the battlefield. Some went to excess. But the significant thing is that the people groped their way to the light. More of them learned to think and work together....

"The people are on the march toward even fuller freedom than the most fortunate peoples of the earth have hitherto enjoyed. No Nazi counter-revolution will stop it. The common man will smoke the Hitler stooges out into the open in the United States, in Latin America, and in India. He will destroy their influence. No Lavals, no Mussolinis will be tolerated in a Free World.

"The people, in their millennial and revolutionary march toward manifesting here on earth the dignity that is in every human soul, hold as their credo the Four Freedoms enunciated by President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on January 6, 1941. These four freedoms are the very core of the revolution for which the United Nations have taken their stand. We who live in the United States may think there is nothing very revolutionary about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom from the fear of secret police. But when we begin to think about the significance of freedom from want for the average man, then we know that the revolution of the past one hundred and fifty years has not been completed, either here in the United States or in any other nation in the world. We know that this revolution can not stop until freedom from want has actually been attained .

"And now, as we move forward toward realizing the Four Freedoms of this people's revolution, I would like to speak about four duties. It is my belief that every freedom, every right, every privilege has its price, its corresponding duty without which it can not be enjoyed. The four duties of the people's revolution, as I see them today, are these:

1. The duty to produce the limit.
2. The duty to transport as rapidly as possible to the field of battle.
3. The duty to fight with all that is in us.
4. The duty to build a peace -- just, charitable and enduring.

"The fourth duty is that which inspires the other three ."

Wallace laments about the failure after WW1; but when he spoke, few knew the actual reasons for the war, although Wallace was correct that it wasn't to serve the Common Man's interest. To solve the basic problem that in reality goes back 4-5,000 years. Wallace then drives the nail home:

"We did not build a peace treaty on the fundamental doctrine of the people's revolution. We did not strive whole-heartedly to create a world where there could be freedom from want for all peoples . But by our very errors we learned much, and after this war we shall be in position to utilize our knowledge in building a world which is economically, politically and, I hope, spiritually sound."

The United Nations contained within it the above vision that it could become the vehicle for attaining the goals enunciated in that last sentence. It's now 75 years later, and it appears we might have an opportunity to attain Wallace's, FDR's, and numerous others dream goal of an unfettered people living in harmony while enjoying those four basic freedoms, but most importantly, the freedom from want and the chains of debt that attends it always .

Wallace knew about banks and finance from the farmer's POV for he was a member of a longstanding Iowa farming family--the Iowa Asgards. And he knew about the Devilish threats within the USA to the Four Freedoms as he noted in his speech. Although the focus was on Germany, Wallace knew the Nazi Devil lived in many places:

"Through the leaders of the Nazi revolution, Satan now is trying to lead the common man of the whole world back into slavery and darkness. For the stark truth is that the violence preached by the Nazis is the devil's own religion of darkness. So also is the doctrine that one race or one class is by heredity superior and that all other races or classes are supposed to be slaves . THE belief in one Satan-inspired Fuhrer, with his Quislings, his Lavals, and his Mussolinis -- his "gauleiters" in every nation in the world -- is the last and ultimate darkness. Is there any hell hotter than that of being a Quisling, unless it is that of being a Laval or a Mussolini?" (Quisling was a Norwegian Fascist executed in 1945 for treason.) [My Emphasis]

Wallace knew and he displayed his knowledge in a very famous op/ed written at the request of the NY Times and vetted by FDR, "The Dangers of American Fascism," published 9 April 1944. Besides that message, Wallace's most powerful message was spoken toward the conclusion of his speech which provides an excellent benchmark to measure just how far we've come and how much farther we need to go:

"Some [Henry Luce] have spoken of the 'American Century.' I say that the century on which we are entering -- The century which will come out of this war -- can be and must be the century of the common man. Perhaps it will be America's opportunity to suggest that Freedoms and duties by which the common man must live. Everywhere the common man must learn to build his own industries with his own hands is a practical fashion. Everywhere the common man must learn to increase his productivity so that he and his children can eventually pay to the world community all that they have received. No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there must be neither military nor economic imperialism . The methods of the nineteenth century will not work in the people's century which is now about to begin. India, China, and Latin America have a tremendous stake in the people's century. As their masses learn to read and write, and as they become productive mechanics, their standard of living will double and treble. Modern science, when devoted whole-heartedly to the general welfare, has in it potentialities of which we do not yet dream.

"And modern science must be released from German slavery. International cartels that serve American greed and the German will to power must go. Cartels in the peace to come must be subjected to international control for the common man, as well as being under adequate control by the respective home governments . In this way, we can prevent the Germans from again building a war machine while we sleep. With international monopoly pools under control, it will be possible for inventions to serve all the people instead of only a few.

"Yes, and when the time of peace comes, The citizen will again have a duty, The supreme duty of sacrificing the lesser interest for the greater interest of the general welfare. Those who write the peace must think of the whole world. There can be no privileged peoples. We ourselves in the United States are no more a master race than the Nazis. And we can not perpetuate economic warfare without planting the seeds of military warfare. We must use our power at the peace table to build an economic peace that is just, charitable and enduring .

"If we really believe that we are fighting for a people's peace, all the rest becomes easy." [All Emphasis Mine]

Reading between the lines, we can sense Wallace's apprehensions about what the USA will become; and as we've witnessed, he was quite correct in his suspicions. But the people were quickly duped and he didn't have any chance of besting Truman in 1948 being attacked in media by those who supported him and FDR during the Depression and war--very much like the attacks on Sanders during the last two election cycles. As Wallace feared, something very similar to Nazism took hold within the USA quickly after the war. Behind it then as now stood Private Finance and the Neoliberals went to work, their goal to privatize everything and ensure the Common Folk owned nothing but the debt that enslaved him/her. No other political-economic example was to be allowed to exist; their one greatest failure and the only reason we're now on the path to the better world we should have already attained if the sort of Christian Commonwealth vision Wallace had and many shared could have arisen instead of the latent fascism within the USA gaining control.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 13 2020 23:01 utc | 49

[Dec 11, 2020] Is The Media Burying The Russiagater Swalwell Story

Dec 11, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We often discuss media coverage and accuracy on developing legal and political controversies. Much of this discussion recently has focused on the bias shown by the media in the last four years. I have worked for the media as a legal analyst and columnist for years, but I have never before seen this raw and open bias in major media. At the same time, academics are rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

This morning, Fox News called out all of the networks for zero coverage of the bombshell story from Axios that Rep. Eric Swalwell may have had a close relationship with a suspected Chinese spy who fled to China a few years ago. Many of us were struck by the lack of coverage, particularly given the position of Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee and his former bid for the presidency. It was particularly striking when the media is now reluctantly covering the Hunter Biden story after a long blackout before the election. Yet, the most stark comparison is with the exhaustive coverage given the highly analogous story involving an alleged spy, Maria Butina, who had an affair with a high-ranking figure in the National Rifle Association.

Swalwell is alleged to have had a close relationship with Chinese national, Fang Fang or Christine Fang, who not only raised money for him but placed at least one intern in Swalwell's congressional office, according to Axios . Bizarrely, Swalwell has refused to confirm or deny that he had an intimate relationship with his office claiming that such an answer could compromise classified information. Even that ridiculous comment did not prompt ABC, NBC, or CBS to cover the story. Obviously, Fang and the Chinese already know if she had a sexual relationship with Swalwell. The only people in the dark are the voters.

Swalwell himself explained why this is news.

The congressman was one of the most vocal voices calling out a June 2016 meeting that President Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., with Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was accused of being an asset for the Russian government.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1082792198096277504&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmedia-burying-swalwell-story&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

Swalwell declared on MSNBC in January 2019:

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

" Stated plainly, the President's son met with a Russian spy. We now have the best evidence of that in our minority report the Democrats put out that Ms. Veselnitskaya was going all over the world and bumping into Dana Rohrabacher, which is a sign of a spy, someone who tries to create a coincidence encounter, and now we know that she was working at the behest of the Russian government. "

Not even the utter hypocrisy of Swalwell's position or the lunacy of his classification claim was enough to generate minimal coverage. There is also no interest in Swalwell remaining on the intelligence committee given his ill-considered relationship.

Swalwell says that he cooperated with the FBI and cut off ties with Fang, who fled to China years ago. There is no indication that he compromised classified information, but such assets are used to often influence powerful leaders or acquire useful background information on other leaders.

MSNBC and other news outlets could not get enough of that story about Trump Jr. but has an effective blackout on the same allegation of Swalwell not just "bumping" into a spy but carrying on a long relationship and even allowing her to raise money for him and help put an intern in his congressional office.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Yet, the greatest contrast is with the NRA story which was endlessly covered. Even when NRA moved to address the relationship between Butina and 57-year-old Republican activist named Paul Erickson. Hundreds of stories ran on every deal and media explored whether a Russian activist influenced powerful figures or shared information .

The FBI Director just gave a public speech on the extensive and growing espionage efforts of China. Yet, the success of planting an agent with Swalwell and a couple of other politicians has been given virtual Hunter Biden treatment. Where a host of legal expert called for charges for treason and other crimes against Trump Jr., there is nothing but crickets when a liberal Democrats members is accused of far more extensive contacts with a Chinese spy. Why?



PrintCash 6 hours ago (Edited)

Does a bear poop in the woods?

Its the sole purpose and desire of the ultra partisan types in the media to control the narrative, control the messaging, control your life. It's what they LIVE for.

Hikikomori 6 hours ago

Swalwell was accusing Trump of colluding with Putin while at the same time Swalwell was screwing a ChiCom spy - you couldn'tmake this up.

Floki_Ragnarsson 6 hours ago

Right out of a Tom Clancy novel.

Lord Raglan 5 hours ago remove link

Swalwell was boinking the Chi-Com Honey Pot in 2015 and maybe earlier, before Trump even announced his run and yet it is all Trump's fault.

There is no lie that is too malignantly preposterous for people on the Left.

Flankspeed60 4 hours ago

The Chinese are not actually our enemy here. When you go to Yellowstone, you're warned not to feed the bears. Same for dragons. Hang raw meat on a clothesline, and expect all the downwind carnivores and blowflies to show up. In our case, corrupt politicians made themselves readily accessible to any and every gomer with large bundles of cash. Even real-life whores are more discerning in their choice of johns than the low-life bacterium we elected to congress-it is THEY AND THEY ALONE who are to blame for selling this country out. The Chinese have nothing but contempt for these dregs, and no one should blame them for paying relative pennies for solid gold bars in return. In fact, our government does exactly the same to countless other countries, so the stampeding hypocrisy of our government in crying 'foul' simply reeks. The Chicoms would most likely shoot, and have shot their own corrupt sell-outs for far less than the crimes committed by our treasonous scumbags. And, until we adopt similar measures against our worthless SOB's, our Swamp will simply continue to get deeper and slimier............

precarryus 4 hours ago

Yet Swill-well says Adam Schiff and Pelosi were aware of his activities, implying ... ...(Surprised?

American2 5 hours ago remove link

Perhaps Peter Strozk can be the defense's rock-solid moral character witness at Eric Swalwell's federal trial.

surf@jm 5 hours ago

The Chinese own Hollywood and the media.....

The Chinese were the main force for the Russia collusion horsehockey through their political whores in congress....

Schroedingers Cat 5 hours ago

Hillary, Brennan, Obama, Chris Hayes, Maddow, Comey, Zucker and many other swamp state freaks are responsible for Russiagate.

The CHinese CCP are definitely up to no good but let's not excuse traitors and chalk it up to Chinese spies. Swalwell is 100% responsible for his own behavior. They ALL ARE. Chinese spies can't corrupt real American Patriots.

Son of Captain Nemo 5 hours ago

Last I checked so was Joe and Hunter Biden along with China?...

And Hunter is doing great things with his money buying under age prostitutes in Ukraine and China making vids of it while sucking on a crack pipe... While the young ladies "suck" something else "off"!!!

Willie the Pimp 6 hours ago remove link

The media? No such thing. CIA propaganda.

John Couger 3 hours ago

This slimy piece of excrement attacked our president for 4 years over the Russia hoax all while being compromised by the communist Chinese

BinAnunnaki 4 hours ago

The Presstitute media is an extension of the Democratic Party.

Cobra Commander 4 hours ago remove link

Precisely. Why pay money to be misinformed? Biden up by 17 in Wisconsin, Hunter laptop media blackout, panning away from ANY mention of voter and election fraud.

OCnStiggs 6 hours ago

"Swallowell" is a lying, prevaricating, stupid POS.

The very first thing they do to you when you get a high security clearance is brief you on people and techniques used to compromise you. Period. Dot. This ****** either skipped the brief or ignored it. Simply associating with people who might be a compromise threat is unlawful. Ignorance is no excuse.

Just sayin'.

Cobra Commander 4 hours ago

Penalties for Inaccurate or False Statements (security clearance)

United States Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines of up to $10,000, and/or 5 years imprisonment, or both.

If you have a security clearance, you agree to report all foreign contacts and relationships. When you submit your clearance request, you attest that all is true, correct, and complete to the best of your knowledge.

Intentionally submitting false information on a clearance request or renewal is subject to criminal prosecution.

Cobra!

[Dec 10, 2020] Remember the Kennedys! by Laurent Guyénot

Notable quotes:
"... It was a complex operation. There have to have been chains of command. ..."
Dec 10, 2020 | www.unz.com

When I finally got to read Michael Collins Piper book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy (first edition 1993), I had already understood that 9/11 was not an Inside Job, but a Mossad Job. Based on recent revelations on Kennedy's uncompromizing opposition to Israel's secret nuclear ambitions (starting with The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh, 1991), Piper could identify the main motive of Israel. He made many disciples. One of them was Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who once declared publicly (the sequence is in the film ):

"Kennedy decided to monitor the Dimona nuclear plant. He insisted on doing so, in order to determine whether or not it produces nuclear weapons. The Israelis refused, but he insisted. This crisis was resolved with the resignation of Ben-Gurion. He resigned so he would not have to agree to the monitoring of the Dimona plant, and he gave the green light for the killing of Kennedy. Kennedy was killed because he insisted on the monitoring of the Dimona plant."

On September 23, 2009, Gaddafi had the guts to demand a new investigation on Kennedy in front of the UN General Assemby. [4] Two years later, he was killed (and his killing filmed, a signature of Israel) and his country destroyed.

Dimona was not the only motive. The Kennedys were also determined to stop the euphemistically called "Israel Lobby" before it became too powerful to be stopped. In 1960, as a candidate, John Kennedy was visited by Abraham Feinberg, who was both the sponsor of Johnson and the financial godfather of Dimona. Here is how Kennedy summed up Feinberg's request, to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy." Bartlett recalls that Kennedy was deeply upset and decided that, "if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it." [5] He did. With Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Kennedys were forcing the American Zionist Council (and its lobbying division AIPAC) to register as a "foreign agent," which would have considerably reduced its efficiency. After John's assassination, the procedure was dropped by Bobby's successor Nicholas Katzenbach, and AIPAC became the most corruptive force in the United States.

A letter by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, dated June 15, 1963

Jewish supremacists had seen the Kennedys coming a long way. In Jack and Bobby, they saw their father. Joe Kennedy had been notoriously critical of Jewish influence during the Second World War.


gay troll , says: December 5, 2020 at 6:37 pm GMT • 2.9 days ago

The Kennedy assassination is similar to 9/11 since there is debate about whether "Israel" or the "Deep State" is guilty of the crime. It is disingenuous to discuss these conspiracies without reference to Israel, but it is also wrong to let the CIA off the hook. The truth is that Israel and the U.S. deep state are symbiotically connected. The deep state is typified by the influence of the Bush family, and indeed it was Prescott Bush who pressured Kennedy into making LBJ his Vice President in the first place. Bush family friend Allen Dulles was in charge of the CIA; JFK fired Dulles and threatened to dissolve the organization. Instead it was JFK who was scattered to the wind and the CIA left trying to cover up the crime with labels of "conspiracy theory". Prescott Bush's son would later direct the CIA and found a presidential dynasty that led directly to 9/11. It is not sufficient to blame Israel; we must blame Zionist Nazis wherever they may be, including the U.S. deep state.

Franz , says: December 6, 2020 at 11:18 pm GMT • 1.7 days ago

Think of what the cult of the Romanovs does for Russia today: they are now canonized as "Holy Imperial Martyrs," with their own church built on the site of their slaughter by Jewish Bolsheviks. That's how important the truth about the Kennedy is for America .

Excellent comparison: Americans are such tedious nit-pickers that the only break the bottleneck might be to turn it into a sacred myth.

To make my point clear: Having read several histories and three biographies of Nicholas II, the only conclusion possible was that he was a weak czar and a lousy ruler. But Nick, as Jack, is not the point. The point is some men are more valuable to national mythology than what history makes of them

My pappy was not a New Dealer but he came from Democrat roots. He thought JFK was a traitor, like so many men in that era who thought Kennedy was soft on communism whether foreign or domestic.

"But I wanted to see him beat by voters, not shot by a nut," he added, not illogically. He felt Kennedy deserved the humiliation of being voted out. JFK's assassination robbed his enemies of seeing him sent packing.

From this remove, we can see JFK as what his daddy was: An unvarnished America-Firster. None of the people who moved in John T. Flynn's America First circle before Pearl Harbor was not "punished". From Lillian Gish to Gore Vidal to Ayn Rand and many politicians beside, whatever could be used against them was. No matter how high they seemed to climb they faced harassment and ugly rumors. And sometimes death...

Franz , says: December 7, 2020 at 1:33 am GMT • 1.6 days ago
@anon

The CIA rules the USA and Israel rules both.

At least the Israelis are honest about this. "We control America and Americans know it". Remember?

sarz , says: December 7, 2020 at 5:54 am GMT • 1.4 days ago
@Druide

Why doesn't Mark Glenn speak for himself? In any case there is no great gulf between Michael Collins Piper's conclusion that Kennedy was killed by Israelis and that LBJ did it. The link is given by 'Salvador Astucia' in his book Opium Lords. Astucia fills out Piper's thesis with his discovery of LBJ's Jewish identity. It's a good read. Amazon pretends it doesn't exist and leads you to the perfume. It's available for free download at Z-Library ( http://b-ok.cc ).

DOUBTFUL , says: December 7, 2020 at 7:22 am GMT • 1.4 days ago

Just the fact that 3 Kennedy-s got murdered by them, proves how dangerous they were to them. They also blackmailed Ted into compliance. Now RFK Jr. is the only one still carrying on some anti Big Pharma heroism. Pray for his safety!

Iris , says: December 7, 2020 at 9:01 am GMT • 1.3 days ago
@gay troll for every conspiracy, while the Zionist lobby is never even mentioned.

9/11 was extremely revealing in that respect, with the CIA becoming the central public object of criticism, its director George Tenet barely keeping his job, while Zionist Donald Rumsfeld ignoring their intelligence on imminent "attacks" got completely off the hook.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Truth movement is itself an astonishing example of superior Zionist power, with almost no Truther daring to point the finger at Israel while the evidence of Zionist masterminding is overwhelming.

Who even dares saying God's honest truth: Israel did 9/11 ?

noname27 , says: Website December 7, 2020 at 9:56 am GMT • 1.2 days ago
@anon

Re control of the CIA, the same way the Rothschild Jews took over MI5, MI6 and The BBC. Perhaps you should look at the history of the CIA.

JimmyGee , says: December 7, 2020 at 10:28 am GMT • 1.2 days ago

The assassination of several of Iran's leading scientists in recent years -- including Prof. Fakhrizadeh less than two weeks ago -- is further evidence that assassination is something to which zionists readily turn when faced with what they consider a 'problem'. The rest of the Western world shies away from this sort of 'gangsterism' -- as Patrick Cockburn rightly calls it. Exposure of Israel's role in the murder of the Kennedy's could give the US the 'reset' that it needs. Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Guyenot.

utu , says: December 7, 2020 at 11:02 am GMT • 1.2 days ago

"Sure, the Kennedys were not perfect. They were no White nationalists." – Do you really believe that being white nationalist is an indication of perfection. I haven't met white nationalist yet who did not have serious character or cognitive flaws.

Phil the Fluter , says: December 7, 2020 at 11:35 am GMT • 1.2 days ago

And James Jesus Angleton should have been named James Judas Angleton. There is a monument to him in Israel for his role in JFK's assassination.

James N. Kennett , says: December 7, 2020 at 12:44 pm GMT • 1.1 days ago
@Laurent Guyénot ted LBJ, but the man in operational control was the CIA man Cord Meyer. JFK was having an affair with Meyer's wife Mary, who was herself killed in 1964.

One of the most intriguing theories is that the CIA planned an incident in Dallas, perhaps a fake assassination attempt, that would be blamed on the Cubans and halt JFK's drift towards peace. Another group heard of the plan and arranged the real assassination, knowing that the CIA would have no choice but to cover up both plots. This theory offers the possibility that, despite the evidence pointing to the CIA, somebody else shot JFK. It means that there is no need to dismiss the evidence against the CIA.

dimples , says: December 7, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT • 1.1 days ago

I really enjoyed Mr Guyenot's film and his wonderful narration (I assume it is he). Although I don't think the film really makes the case that Israel was the culprit, it makes clear that its desire for nukes and greater integration with the US security state must be added to the many factions that wanted Kennedy dead and out of the way.

Are not the US Deep State and Jews inextricably intermingled? Does Mossad do all the shooting and run the coverup itself or do American Zionist Jews do their bit to move the plot along under orders or when they see it necessary? Mr Guyenot does not make this clear. He seems to be saying that Israel concocted the plot by itself and used Jews in America (such as LBJ, a crypto-Jew) to influence government agencies and media to perform the assassination and then cover it up. He seems to be saying on one hand that the CIA had nothing to do with it, on the other hand he hints that James Jesus Angleton, chief of CIA Counterintelligence and a sure friend of Israel, was the mastermind. I would say that Israel's interests were just another motive that happily coincided with the rest of the toxic brew, and Mr Guyenot does not prove otherwise.

At 45.07 mins, the following is stated:

"In fact the CIA conspiracy theory suffers from a crippling contradiction. According to it, the purpose of killing Kennedy was to create a pretext for invading Cuba, something that Kennedy had always refused to do. With Oswald groomed as a pro-Castro communist the Dallas shooting was staged as a false-flag attack to be blamed on Cuba according to the CIA theory. But then why did no invasion of Cuba follow Kennedy's assassination? It is because Johnson, we are told, thwarted the plot's ultimate aim to start WW3."

This seems to be a very confused interpretation of the 'CIA conspiracy theory'. As I understand it, the pseudo-communist elements of the plot, ie Oswald's apparent pro-Castro communism and his alleged attempt to obtain a visa to escape to Russia via Cuba after shooting Kennedy, were pro-actively set up by the CIA in to order to dupe LBJ into forcing the Warren Commission into pursuing the 'lone nut' conclusion to the exclusion of all others. If the Commission did not do this, the alternative, according to the CIA and its dupe LBJ, was that the assassination of Kennedy would be exposed as a Russian plot, thereby fomenting the American public into a devastating war with Russia. This had to be prevented at all costs, LBJ told Warren, so his commission had to come up with a politically acceptable conclusion regardless of the actual truth.

At 13.5 mins, it is stated:

"Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's 8mm film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination"

This is not correct. Zapruder, a cunning Jew who knew what his film was worth, refused attempts at confiscation by the Dallas police. Since Zapruder was a well known local businessman, with, as M Guyenot notes, strong connections to the Dallas Citizens Council, a Jewish enclave, the police did not press the issue. The film was sold to Life magazine the next day for $150,000 and subsequently suppressed by them for several years until the Garrison investigation subpoenaed it.

Laurent Guyénot , says: December 7, 2020 at 3:28 pm GMT • 1.0 days ago
@dimples operated, but there is no evidence. There is no evidence, for example, against Richard Helms, who, when asked in 1975 about Oswald's CIA links, correctly answered: ask rather the ONI! Oswald was a marine, remember!
On the Zapruder film, I believe the FBI did confiscate the film, and gave it back to Zapruder after a few day, only it was not the same film anymore, and Life magazine was prohibitded to show more than a few slides. I would have to check the details. In any case, you have to understand that to make a 90-minute films, you have to take a few shortcuts and focus on connecting the main dots. I am fully aware that of lot of details are missing.
Wyatt , says: December 7, 2020 at 4:24 pm GMT • 23.4 hours ago

I admit it: I like the Kennedys. Actually, I love the Kennedys.

That's a stupid position to hold. The verbal tongue bath you give ignores a couple of issues:

-Kennedy increased the build-up to the Vietnam War as part of his failure to show strength when confronting the Soviets politically.

-He sought to federalize the mental health hospitals because his father was an impertinent shithead who lobotomized his daughter out of convenience. Reagan completed the gutting of mental health 20 years later.

-He picked that disgusting pig LBJ as his running mate to secure votes and JFK getting "BOOM, HEADSHOT'ed" put that ugly bastard in charge of everything, including being besties with Israel and having mood swings that left him incapable of executing the Vietnam War.

-Totally failing to commit either for or against the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The Vienna Summit was quickly convened in part to deal with his ambivalent decision.

-By his own admission, he was grossly unprepared for his confrontation with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna and that in turn emboldened the Soviets to put missiles in Cuba.

You know who didn't roll over like a bitch when confronting lil' Niki? Richard Milhous Nixon. Motherfucker stuck his finger right in Khrushchev's chest and gave that commie turd the what for. I imagine the guy who was captured on tape as saying "the jews are born spies" probably would have seen right through the attack on the USS Liberty and not immediately folded like an Irishman's skull. Had he been president instead of your vaunted JFK, we wouldn't have gotten LBJ. Neither Kennedys got AIPAC registered with FARA and neither stymied Israel. Neither was useful and in fact they made everything worse.

Mr. Frog, I would caution you to show a little more diligence when advocating for cultish worship of someone as flawed and incapable as JFK. The man was an incompetent philanderer who only got into the position he did by hook and crook and daddy's bootlegger money. Had Joe not been killed, I imagine he would been a far superior president. His early life indicates he had good observational skills and a keen take on the world, particularly in the 1930s.

There is precisely one excellent Kennedy and his name is Leon Scott. He was a terrible cop, but an excellent federal employee. Hell of a lot less damaging to the United States of America than the rest of the Kennedy family was.

gay troll , says: December 7, 2020 at 5:12 pm GMT • 22.6 hours ago
@Laurent Guyénot dy's personal secretary, told Summers in an interview that she was convinced in mid-1960 that J. Edgar Hoover and Johnson had conspired.

Then there is the fact that Allen Dulles had a seat on the Warren Commission, which published an ham fisted cover up of the assassination.

Scapegoating Israel for all this is a psyop intended the absolve the CIA of guilt. As I said before, the Zionist connection is paramount. But it is not Israel doing these things to the U.S., it is the U.S. government doing these things for Israel (or at the very least, enabling and ignoring Israeli crimes, which would make them no less guilty).

gay troll , says: December 7, 2020 at 5:27 pm GMT • 22.3 hours ago
@Laurent Guyénot

The U.S. government has no right to the presumption of innocence since they have CLASSIFIED tons of information surrounding the assassination. You suggest the CIA concealed things because they were "forced" to because they had "enough" to hide. That smacks of sophistry. Were they also forced to popularize the term "conspiracy theorist" in 1967 and coach the media on how to wield it against Warren Commission critics? If these Nazi fucks are innocent then let them declassify their secrets.

Pincher Martin , says: December 7, 2020 at 6:13 pm GMT • 21.6 hours ago

Has anyone here other than me actually read Ron Unz's full bibliography concerning the Israel angle on the JFK assassination?

The bibliography is based on Ron's "American Pravda" articles "The JFK Assassination, Part 1 – What Happened?" and "The JFK Assassination, Part 2 – Who Did it?" as well as "Mossad Assassinations."

_______

A Citizen's Dissent: Mark Lane Replies to the Defenders of the Warren Report – Mark Lane (1968)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence – Victor Marchetti & John Marks (1974)

Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship – James Ennes (1979)

Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with Militant Israel – Michael Green (1984)

By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer – Victor Ostrovsky & Claire Hoy (1990)

Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? – Mark Lane (1991)

The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy – Seymour Hersh (1991)

The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda – Victor Ostrovsky (1994)

The Dark Side of Camelot – Seymour Hersh (1997)

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years – David Talbot (2007)

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters – James Douglass (2008)

Conspiracy Theory in America – Lance deHaven-Smith (2013)

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Masse Against LBJ – Roger Stone (2014)

The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government – David Talbot (2015)

Final Judgment – The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy – Michael Collins Piper (2017)

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations – Ronen Bergman (2018) *

* The last time I read Unz's article, he claimed he had not yet actually read "Rise and Kill First."

_______

Other than Piper's book, which is a mess, none of these books come close to supporting the contention that Israel was willing and capable of killing JFK. In fact, I came away from the Bergman and Ostrovsky books convinced the Israelis did not have the capability or the will to project their killing power into the U.S., let alone pull off a sophisticated conspiracy on American soil.

Walter , says: December 7, 2020 at 7:00 pm GMT • 20.8 hours ago

According to Frank Sheeran, the famous mob hitman, the mob was deep in the hit. Said mob was on a job, an assignment. The mob had families. The was a Jewish mob, an Italian mob, and so on, and they coordinated fairly well with FBI and CIA in "various matters". Many people say that Bobby and Jack double crossed the mob – thus providing motivation. CIA/FBI and Lyndon's gang did the coverup and so sloppy that that hit would be seen by adults as a warning to others It seems to have worked. Sheeran seemed to say that the actual hit was done by the Italian mob out of the Big Easy.

Of course zionists had motivation too – the ability to blackmail LBJ over his involvement (remember the Liberty attack in '67 – LBJ helped cover that up why?) and of course blackmail everybody once they had bombs

Skeptikal , says: December 7, 2020 at 7:04 pm GMT • 20.7 hours ago
@Laurent Guyénot the producer/director, so to speak, but not the screenwriter -- with two capos under him, one of whom took charge of the technology (arranging the route; making arrangements to get control of the body and the autopsy; that kind of thing) and the other of whom made the contacts to bring in the required shooters. It may be worthwhile to analyze the event in terms of making a film, because surely the aim was to create a convincing alternative reality, as like an action film. In such a scenario Johnson would be the guy who controls the local ground forces.

It was a complex operation. There have to have been chains of command.

cranc , says: December 7, 2020 at 7:24 pm GMT • 20.4 hours ago

The problems with the Israel-as-sole/ prime-instigators angle are (i) the extent of the cover up, and (ii) the number of leads pointing at CIA involvement.
I wonder how much of a dichotomy this really is though?
Bridging the worlds of, on the one hand, Jewish Zionism and that of the elitist WASPs on the other are groups like the Freemasonic lodges. Perpetrators trying to recruit conspirators from within the intelligence ciricles by trying to portray Kennedy as 'a commie stooge' would have faced a hard sell. Alternatively to draw attention to his family's implicit appeasement for National Socialism (which of course shut down the lodges) might have worked better, especially with a few exaggerated rumours thrown into the mix.
If I remember rightly from Piper's book, Angleton met regularly with a shaddowy figure (an orchid grower ?). Would be interesting to know who he was and what the true nature of their relationship was. What motivates a gentile like Angleton toward such loyalty to a foreign government and a particularist religious group to which he is ultimately excluded? Is it just bribery and blackmail or is there something deeper? Perhaps if we can answer that, then me might understand if/how others like him could have participated in killing their own leader.

Anon [240] Disclaimer , says: December 7, 2020 at 8:20 pm GMT • 19.5 hours ago

At an elite New England university in 1968, I became an RFK supporter in the midst of the powerful enthusiasm for Eugene McCarthy's candidacy. What was that like? Cliff Robertson's line to Robert Redford, who is opposing the CIA, in the great movie "Three Days of the Condor": "You're about to become a very lonely man."

Iris , says: December 7, 2020 at 8:31 pm GMT • 19.3 hours ago
@James N. Kennett officer holding Oswald and wearing a white suit, in the middle of a national mourning, in place of a high-visibility jacket.

Rubinstein making the deliberate sacrifice of his life was unlikely to be for the money.
When asked by his Rabbi, once in prison why he'd killed Oswald, Rubinstein replied:" I did it for the Jewish people ".

https://www.jta.org/2013/11/11/united-states/my-history-with-the-family-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-jewish-killer

Pincher Martin , says: December 7, 2020 at 8:34 pm GMT • 19.2 hours ago
@Skeptikal
Do you see that little big before the big Vietnam bump in the late 1960s? That's the Kennedy bump. And it was done in peacetime.

JFK was a moderate politician who entered office as an enthusiastic Cold Warrior. There's plenty of evidence that as the responsibilities of office weighed upon him that he began to moderate his stance toward the Soviet Union, but there is no credible evidence that he had turned 180 degrees and was embarked upon ending the Cold War.

But that is what Douglass would have us believe was the motive for killing him.

Robert Konrad , says: December 7, 2020 at 9:20 pm GMT • 18.5 hours ago

"With Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Kennedys were forcing the American Zionist Council (and its lobbying division AIPAC) to register as a "foreign agent," which would have considerably reduced its efficiency."

Btw: consider what has happened to Senator Fulbright's "Fulbright Foundation," one of the very few, very worthy American foreign policy initiatives. If resurrected today, Senator Fulbright would promptly die again in despair over what the Deep State has done to his international peace program.

Timur The Lame , says: December 7, 2020 at 9:37 pm GMT • 18.2 hours ago
@Pincher Martin "I'm just a patsy.." ( pre Ruby Comment by the alleged perp himself).

8) Instant identification as the murderer much like Bin laden again.

And so on. I am not a JFK expert but over the years I have read over 20 books on the topic which were mostly bogus but did contribute fodder for critical thinking.

And so if someone can tie in just the few disparate points I made (there are many more), not to conclude who did it but that shows that it could only be Oswald killing JFK on his own I have yet to see it.

Cheers-

gay troll , says: December 7, 2020 at 9:53 pm GMT • 17.9 hours ago
@Pincher Martin d very strong Texas connections to Texas just like LBJ. In 1988, The Nation published an article alleging that H.W. Bush worked for the CIA in the 1960's. This is before he became a congressman from Texas in 1967, later the director of the CIA, later vice President, later President, and finally father of another President. Of course, JFK was assassinated in Texas, the backyard of LBJ and H.W. And the Bush family has been the single biggest political beneficiary of his death, along with their bosom buddies in the CIA, and Israel itself.
gay troll , says: December 7, 2020 at 10:17 pm GMT • 17.5 hours ago

Mr. Guyenot, how do you defend the innocence of LBJ against this:

By law, the autopsy of President Kennedy should have been performed by Dallas medical examiners, because legally, the crime was a murder under Texas law (it was not a federal crime in 1963 to assassinate a president). While Kennedy's body was still at Parkland Hospital, local officials informed the federal officials who were present that the latter could not take possession of Kennedy's body until the autopsy had been completed by a Dallas medical examiner who was already at the hospital. Nevertheless, at the vice president's instruction, Secret Service agents had a casket delivered, took control of Kennedy's body (some reports say at gunpoint) as Parkland Hospital doctors and staff tried to block their way, put the body inside the casket, placed it in an ambulance, and had the ambulance taken to the airport. [ ] At approximately 2:15 PM, less than two hours after the shooting, the casket was lugged up the stairs of Air Force One, squeezed through the narrow airplane door, and set down in the rear of the presidential plane, where seats had to be removed to make room. Vice President Johnson boarded immediately afterward, but, even though Jacqueline Kennedy was on board, he delayed the plane's departure for almost an hour, until a federal judge could get there whom he had selected to administer the oath of office. He then insisted that Mrs. Kennedy come out of the plane's bedroom and stand beside him as he was sworn in and photos were taken."

-Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America , University of Texas Press

There is also the fact that LBJ's federal entourage "destroyed critically important evidence by having the President's limousine washed, all the blood cleaned from the limo's seats and carpet, all the bullet-pocked windshield and interior chrome replaced. [ ] The washing started in public and in broad daylight while the limo was still at Parkland Hospital. At 8:00 PM on the evening of the assassination, the limo was flown by cargo plane to Washington, DC."

deHaven Smith concludes: "Johnson's involvement could be construed as circumstantial evidence of guilt since it suggested knowledge of a frontal shooting; it also amounted to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence in a capital crime."

gay troll , says: December 7, 2020 at 11:05 pm GMT • 16.7 hours ago
@Pincher Martin According to the latest figures from the National Archives, a total of 15,834 JFK files remain fully or partially classified, most of them held by the CIA and FBI. Thanks to an October 2017 order from President Trump, these documents will not be made public until October 2021, at the earliest.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/jfk-what-the-cia-hides/

Of course Trump (or Biden) will just punt on declassification again like a good puppet.

Fallingwater , says: December 7, 2020 at 11:22 pm GMT • 16.4 hours ago
@Pincher Martin nd continuing to this day, especially after the breakup of the USSR). The Right of Return is an easy way to avoid the law, whether you're a mafioso or a child predator. Look it up.

I don't believe Israel ever considered just flying in some guys to kill JFK. But what Ron was pointing out was the suspicious overlap of interests between key figures at the CIA, the (((organized crime world))), and the State of Israel, who almost assuredly had many hooks into the two aforementioned groups, as explained earlier.

anon [314] Disclaimer , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:00 am GMT • 15.8 hours ago

Pincher Martin is here to carry out CIA memo 1035-960 to the letter and save the day for Gina's saggy ass! Note his invocation of nuts, pathologizing dissent per CIA instructions. Conspiracy odds 3-5 per cent, that's ¶ 4(c)! Cottage industry producing lots of theories, that's ¶ 3(b/5)! Genuflect to the risible Warren Commission, that's ¶ 4(a)! It's all done as unsupported slogans for dimbulbs, good enough for government work as always.

CIA's core competence is routinizing crime so even ASVAB waivers like Pincher Martin can help secrete the family jewels. Sadly for junior spy cadet Pincher and his merit badge in wanking, actual competent security services have CIA's comprehensive bill of indictment up to date and ready to go. Russia. China. Iran. Malaysia. Cuba. Turkey. South Africa. Pakistan. And now they all have CTOC to prosecute it. They have the SCO with a real missile gap to enforce it.

CIA is going to be a smoldering sinkhole of molten rock. And America will be free.

JWalters , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:03 am GMT • 15.7 hours ago
@sarz able, most compelling evidence that thoroughly demolishes the official stories, and does so in a relatively compact, easily digested form.

For younger readers who may be new to the story of the Kennedy assassinations, a somewhat broader survey of the evidence, including many links, is at
"War Profiteers and the JFK Assassination"
https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-jfk-assassination.html

Gulnare , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:07 am GMT • 15.7 hours ago
@Gulnare ames, thousands of killed, defamed, ruined people all over the world. And this is an inherent problem with a Jewish state: it can't be different. "The Jewish tradition is rampantly ethnocentric and dehumanises outsiders with a gusto that could hardly be exceeded", – wrote Ed Herman in his Triumph of the Market."

https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-assassins-are-back/

Walter , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT • 15.6 hours ago
@gay troll

Well, everybody knows that the deliberate destruction of evidence in a murder is a felony itself, accessory after the fact. Evidence of LBJ knowing in advance

JWalters , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:18 am GMT • 15.5 hours ago
@gay troll l's Bank"
https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html

I would especially recommend looking at the evidence in
"The Great Red Dragon Or London Money Power"
https://ia801200.us.archive.org/17/items/LondonMoneyPowerGreatRedDragonWoolfolk1

Pincher Martin , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:25 am GMT • 15.4 hours ago
@Bardon Kaldian ut it.

There were also regulatory and bureaucratic ways the Israelis could evade Kennedy's will. JFK was constantly surprised by his own bureaucracy. His purposes were often thwarted. Why assume that couldn't happen again?

And as long as Israel kept quiet about their pursuit of nuclear weapons, what was Kennedy going to do? The US at the time provided very little in the way of military aid to Israel.

JWalters , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:40 am GMT • 15.1 hours ago
@anon

A cabal of financiers in London are the head of a powerful financial octopus with many tentacles. Please see my comment #140 in this thread, at
https://www.unz.com/article/remember-the-kennedys/#comment-4329378

gay troll , says: December 8, 2020 at 1:06 am GMT • 14.7 hours ago
@Pincher Martin really wanted to put an end to a lot of conspiracy theories they could simply declassify. But then, of course, we might be left with a conspiracy truth.

I don't "believe stupid stuff", I endeavor to understand things that MY GOVERNMENT FORBIDS ME FROM UNDERSTANDING. That is an entirely rational thing to do.

Now like I said, fuck off, you pathetic spook apologist.

Ron Unz , says: December 8, 2020 at 1:07 am GMT • 14.7 hours ago
@Pincher Martin n European, including high-ranking government officials, and even American presidents? You seem an exceptionally gullible fellow.

Since you now say you never read my long article on the subject from a year ago, I strongly suggest that you should do so:

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

phillip sawicki , says: December 8, 2020 at 1:13 am GMT • 14.6 hours ago

Mr. Guyenot's From Yahweh to Zion is the work of a great historian. But his book on JFK and 9/11 is not in the same class. I own both, I've read both and am in fact reading the former again. I had hoped that the author would draw some parallels between JFK and Trump, but I found nothing of that sort. Why are so many responsible people in both parties ignoring the obvious fraud of the election? My guess is that Trump knows too much, but he can't be killed because the ramifications would be too great. Perhaps he knows so much that he could wreck the duopoly if he doesn't keep quiet. Maybe, for example, he knows how Jeffrey Epstein died and who might be responsible .say, Bill Clinton. I'm just speculating, but there's a lot going on that isn't being told. Naturally.

Franz , says: December 8, 2020 at 11:13 am GMT • 5.6 hours ago
@Observator p>

Flynn was the embodiment of an actual American patriot, as the Reverend Sloan Coffin and other rational and respectable opponents of the Vietnam War were a generation later. It's sad so few remember the names of the good guys.

Professor Charles' book came out in 2007. Well worth reading.

utu , says: December 8, 2020 at 11:34 am GMT • 5.3 hours ago

I am tired of hearing the JFK discussion going in circles where seemingly the same actors are through the same arguments and red herrings whenever JFK and Israel hypothesis is brought up. In my opinion the hypothesis that JFK was assassinated by and/or on the behalf of Israel is the strongest hypothesis there is. This is what I wrote two year ago under Ron Unz's article:

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/?showcomments#comment-2383361

[T]he future of the Israel lobby in the US was decided on November 22, 1963. RFK's attempts to force the lobby to register as a foreign agent were permanently derailed on this day. JFK's attempts to stop Israel from acquiring the nuclear weapons were permanently derailed. The Israel lobby is what it is now because of assassinations of JFK and RFK. Israel could acquire nuclear weapons because of assassination of JFK. Israel was the greatest beneficiary of JFK's assassination. It was not Cuba's communists, it was not Cuba's anticommunist, it was not USSR, it was not Mafia, it was not CIA, it was not MIC, it was not Federal Reserve, it was not Aristotle Onassis but it was Israel and the Zionist lobby that achieved the most tangible benefits from JFK's assassination.

Anybody who questions and have doubts about the seriousness of situation of Israel vis a vis the US in 1963 should read all letters between JFK and Ben-Gurion and his succesor and follow RFK correspondence about the foreign agent status of the Jewish/Israel lobby. There are more documents available now than when Michael Collins Piper was doing his research. Few year ago I asked Laurent Guyenot if he was familiar with the documentation but he did not to answer. Somebody should write a book solely based on the documentation so we no longer have to hear ignorant skeptics like the Bardon Kaldian character.

Laurent Guyénot , says: December 8, 2020 at 11:41 am GMT • 5.1 hours ago
@ChiefIlliniwek1982

I am convinced that the fact that Ben-Gurion ordered the assassination of Kennedy is an open secret in well-informed Jewish circles, and a strong suspicion among most educated Israelis. I take Andrew Adler's famous editorial (The Atlanta Jewish Times, January 13, 2012) calling the Mossad to assassinate the president to replace him by his Israel-friendly vice-president (below) to be a clear sign of this. As Israelis and American Jews now brag openly about their influence over the world and their right to eliminate those who get in the way of Israel's grandiose destiny, I wouldn't be surprised if one day an Israeli journalist publicly credits Ben-Gurion for ridding Israel of that "dangerous Kennedy anti-Semite."

Laurent Guyénot , says: December 8, 2020 at 12:33 pm GMT • 4.3 hours ago

For the sake of contributing to the debate on the CIA(DeepState) vs Israel issue, and to clarify what I mentionned in an earlier commen (46), here is an excerpt from my chapter on Kennedy in From Yahweh to Zion :

One solution to the problem has been provided by the already-mentioned Gary Wean in his book There's a Fish in the Courthouse (1987), quoted by Michael Piper in his groundbreaking Final Judgment. Relying on a well-informed source in Dallas (identified as Republican Senator John Tower in his 1996 second edition), Wean raises the possibility that the Dallas coup was "a double-cross of fantastic dimensions," in which a failed assassination attempt staged by the CIA was hijacked by what he names the Mishpucka (Hebrew for "the Family"), the Russian Jewish Mafia, whose evil power reaching into the highest spheres Wean has been investigating for years in California. The Mishpucka wanted Kennedy dead and turned the operation into a successful assassination, then escaped investigation by hiding behind the CIA's scheme. JFK researcher Dick Russell has independently added weight to that theory by interviewing Cuban exiles who believe they were manipulated (The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1992).
The assumption is that the CIA and their Cuban exile associates intended to spare Kennedy's life but force him to retaliate against Castro. It was a false flag operation: Oswald, the patsy, had been groomed with the "legend" of a pro-Castro communist activist, to be sold to the public by news media on the day of the assassination. According to what Tower told Wean, "There was to be an attempt on the life of President Kennedy so 'realistic' that its failure would be looked upon as nothing less than a miracle. Footprints would lead right to Castro's doorstep, a trail that the rankest amateur could not lose."
Israel had no interest in Cuba but wanted Kennedy dead. So did Johnson. So they hijacked the operation, probably by providing the real snipers on the grassy knoll. The national security state was too deeply involved to be able to protest, and had to go along with its original plan to blame Oswald, knowing that if they tried to expose Israel's coup, they would be the first to be exposed.
Several researchers have independently reached the same conclusion that a fake assassination attempt by CIA-led Cuban exiles was turned into a real assassination by a third party, but few succeeded -- or, more probably, dared -- to name that third party. They are mentioned by the late Michael Collins Piper. One of them was former CIA contract agent Robert Morrow in his 1976 novelized version of events, Betrayal. Another was longtime independent investigator Scott Thompson, who alleged that Howard Hunt was coordinating the fraudulent assassination attempt, but notes that "it remains unclear to this day who intervened into the dummy assassination set-up and turned it into the real thing." Veteran JFK investigator Dick Russell, in The Man Who Knew Too Much, has also pondered the possibility that the CIA's relationship with Oswald was "usurped by another group," and noted: "Many people in the CIA had reasons to cover up their own relationship to Oswald, even if this had nothing to do with an assassination conspiracy. [ ] what cannot be overlooked is that a third force was aware of the counterspy web [surrounding Oswald] and seized on it to their own advantage."
Whether or not the CIA was implicated in a fake assassination attempt on Kennedy is, after all, secondary -- for a person's or an organization's vulnerability to blackmail is proportional to the number of illegal activities he or it wants to keep secret, and no organization has more dirty secrets to hide than the CIA. By its privileged access to the media, the Zionist network had plenty of means of keeping the agency on the defensive.

Iris , says: December 8, 2020 at 2:31 pm GMT • 2.3 hours ago

The reason why President Kennedy was killed by Israel requires a quick digression about how nuclear weapons were made in the 1960's.

1-What are nuclear weapons made of:
A nuclear reactor is built to burn a natural radioactive fuel (uranium), a process that takes months. Then, nuclear reprocessing is carried on the spent nuclear fuel to separate un-burnt uranium and plutonium from other fission products. Finally, plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons.

So, the energization of a reactor, then of a reprocessing facility, are two critical milestones for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons.

Finally, to verify its real purposes, civil or military, a reactor must be inspected before going critical, as afterwards certain parts become inaccessible.

2-A brief timeline of the run-up to the JFK assassination:
– From January to March 1963, JFK receives alarming US intelligence reports that, contrary to promises made, the Israelis were building military nuclear capacities.

– From March to June 1963, heated exchange of communication between JFK and Ben-Gurion with JFK putting pressure for a bi-annual inspection of Israeli nuclear facilities by the US. Ben-Gurion uses on-going ME events (creation of a "threatening Arab Federation") as a pretext to dodge JFK's demands.

– On 15 June 63, JFK issues a blunt ultimatum letter to Ben-Gurion, requiring US Dimona inspection starting from the summer of 1963 and stating that " commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardised " if refused.

– On 16 June 63, Ben-Gurion stuns Israel and the world by suddenly and unexpectedly resigning for " personal reasons ".

– On 4 July 63, only 10 days after his appointment, new Israeli PM Eshkol receives a JFK letter on the same intransigent terms as used with Ben-Gurion.

– Eshkol tries to gain time and makes unsatisfactory proposals of one-yearly visit, which is not sufficient to verify the reactor's real purposes .

– On 19 August, Eshkol comes up with a vague response agreeing to a first visit at the end of 1963.

3-What happened after the JFK assassination:
– On 18 January 1964, the US Atomic Energy Agency representatives visit Dimona for the first time since the fall 1962.

– The US delegations finds that, according to their hosts, a key milestone was crossed a few weeks earlier with the Dimona reactor (allegedly) going live on 26 Dec 1963 .

– The Israeli Atomic Energy commission, however, celebrates as July 1963 the date the Dimona reactor went live.

– The US delegation mildly notes " the impression of the team that the Dimona site and the equipment located there represented an ambitious project for a country of Israel's capabilities ". And adds: " The Israelis are building [ ] facilities well beyond those needed for normal research reactor".

– The US delegation simply accepted the Israeli claim that "the reprocessing facility had been delayed" i.e. simply take their word they allegedly cannot extract plutonium for weapons yet.

4-Conclusion:
– At the time (15 Jun 1963) JFK demanded the Dimona reactor to undergo US inspection, this reactor was actually only a few days from going live. Should it have been inspected before as planned by JFK in the summer 63, it would have become immediately obvious from its viewable features that it was intended for military purposes.
An urgent diversion was required from the imminent inspection peril: Ben-Gurion resigned to give time to the Isrealis, who went ahead and secretly energised the Dimona reactor.

– JFK did not let go and Eshkol had to agree to a postponed Dec 63 inspection. But this was just delaying the reckoning. Should this inspection have happened under JFK's watch, Kennedy would have immediately found out that the reactor was already live, and that he had been fooled by the Israelis for obvious reasons.

– So, in summary, the Israeli government needed JFK gone or dead before December 1963 and the planned inspection of the Dimona reactor, to hide its military nature and already progressed operation.

– How incredibly convenient and indeed, miraculous, that he got killed ((( by a lone gunman))) just one month before this dreaded deadline that would have brought American hellfire on the Zionist state.. A miracle delivered straight from Yahweh's rifle, again

God bless heroic JFK's eternal soul, who died so we don't have to live in the dystopian hell we are in today.

Laurent Guyénot
December 8, 2020 at 2:45 pm GMT • 2.1 hours ago 100 Words ↑ @Laurent Guyénot former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department. (Incidentally, Wean claims that Cohen, who specialized in sexually compromising Hollywood stars for the purpose of blackmail, was responsible for pushing Marilyn Monroe into Kennedy's bed.)

ChiefIlliniwek1982 , says: December 8, 2020 at 2:59 pm GMT • 1.8 hours ago
@Laurent Guyénot CIA was involved in the fake assassination, it was compromised. Perhaps a tactic of the Mossad is to compromise agencies such as the CIA that could thwart and/or expose Mossad machinations.
James N. Kennett
December 8, 2020 at 3:10 pm GMT • 1.7 hours ago 200 Words ↑ @Iris ad swindled bigger mobsters than himself and they made him an offer he could not refuse – to shoot Oswald – and he told the rabbi a comforting lie. We just do not know.
Ron Unz
December 8, 2020 at 3:16 pm GMT • 1.6 hours ago 200 Words ↑ @Laurent Guyénot prudence, arguing that Jews needed to gain some additional strength before they should take such a risky step.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/

[Dec 02, 2020] Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black4

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I don't disagree with the idea that Trump should go (he is clearly incompetent for this position), but to think that Biden (personally also completely incompetent due to his health condition, and even before that; can you imagine this second rate politician summit with Macron, Merkel, or Putin even if we ignore his current health problems ), in some ways, will be an improvement is pretty optimistic. ..."
"... Biden administration will be especially dangerous in foreign policy where Russiagaters mafia clearly returned to power, (and chickenhawks like Nuland are in demand again; as well several other flavors of "national security parasites".) ..."
"... Both are puppets of approximately the same social force -- the union on neoliberal oligarchy and MIC (aka Uniparty.) Biden mafia simply will be slightly more polished, and less "in your face." But both are brutal gangsters, both domestically and on foreign arena. And that's pretty depressing. And one great service of Trump administration was that it exposed what is behind the fake facade. Biden will try to rebuild this fake facade, this Potemkin village again. that's all the difference. ..."
Dec 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

@William Gruff | Nov 30 2020 21:13 utc | 138

Bemildred , Dec 1 2020 11:06 utc | 160

When left becomes right, progressive become regressive, and fascist becomes anti-fascist, then we have to invent whole new vocabularies just to discuss the problems that humanity is facing. What is worse though is that upending the language of political society in this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present. I suppose that is the point though.
This is pretty interesting thought, thank you very much. Kind of Orwellian ""War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," on a new, more sinister level as in "this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present."

But is reality Henry Ford quote "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." is perfectly applicable to any US elections and political life in general.

Some commentators here for some reason think that Biden (yes, this semi-senile Biden, a marionette from the very beginning; senator from credit card companies; the worst enemy of working class in Congress ) is somehow preferable to Trump (yes, this Trump, a marionette of Zionists, the President who completely betrayed his electorate, best friend of billionaires and Pentagon; kind of Bush III replicating both intellectual level of Bush II and his policies, including a tax cut for the rich).

I don't disagree with the idea that Trump should go (he is clearly incompetent for this position), but to think that Biden (personally also completely incompetent due to his health condition, and even before that; can you imagine this second rate politician summit with Macron, Merkel, or Putin even if we ignore his current health problems ), in some ways, will be an improvement is pretty optimistic.

Biden administration will be especially dangerous in foreign policy where Russiagaters mafia clearly returned to power, (and chickenhawks like Nuland are in demand again; as well several other flavors of "national security parasites".)

Both are puppets of approximately the same social force -- the union on neoliberal oligarchy and MIC (aka Uniparty.) Biden mafia simply will be slightly more polished, and less "in your face." But both are brutal gangsters, both domestically and on foreign arena. And that's pretty depressing. And one great service of Trump administration was that it exposed what is behind the fake facade. Biden will try to rebuild this fake facade, this Potemkin village again. that's all the difference.

Posted by: likbez | December 01, 2020 at 07:04

"When left becomes right, progressive become regressive, and fascist becomes anti-fascist, then we have to invent whole new vocabularies just to discuss the problems that humanity is facing. What is worse though is that upending the language of political society in this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present. I suppose that is the point though."

Yes, that's what the gaslighing is all about, but the problem - as our self-designated betters are finding out now - is that you cannot run a sucessful competitive modern society that way, banana republics do not get to rule the world.

Even ... Henry Ford understood he had to take good care of his employees.

Biden is going to have his hands full without looking for any more trouble.

[Dec 01, 2020] Biden pick for OMB director has a Steele dossier problem

Dec 01, 2020 | www.washingtonexaminer.com

P resident-elect Joe Biden's pick to run the Office of Management and Budget has a history of defending British ex-spy Christopher Steele's discredited anti-Trump dossier.

Years of controversial claims about the Trump-Russia controversy, particularly about the dossier funded in part by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, presents one of several obstacles for Neera Tanden, a longtime Democratic operative, to achieve Senate confirmation next year.

A significant question that remains is how the two Senate runoff races in Georgia shake out in January, with control of the upper chamber hanging in the balance. Tanden is sure to meet stiff opposition from Republicans, who will be led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom Tanden derisively tweeted in August 2019, "Stacey Abrams just called McConnell 'Moscow Mitch.' Love it."

In selecting Tanden on Monday, Biden described the president of the left-wing Center for American Progress as "a leading architect and advocate of policies designed to support working families." Tanden worked on Bill Clinton's successful run in 1992 and Barack Obama's successful presidential run in 2008. She was also an adviser on Hillary Clinton's successful Democratic primary effort in 2016 and the failed general election run that November.

Not mentioned in her Biden transition team biography was the role Tanden played in promoting unsubstantiated claims throughout the Trump-Russia controversy.

Tanden launched the "Moscow Project" in 2017, and after Buzzfeed published Steele's dossier in January 2017, Tanden's think tank released a statement saying, "The intelligence dossier presents profoundly disturbing allegations; ones that should shake every American to the core." Tanden went on to defend the Steele dossier repeatedly on Twitter, attacking those who critiqued the FBI for relying on its claims to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page and implying that critics of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation were doing Russia's bidding.

"Make Chris Steele the next James Bond," Tanden tweeted in January 2017.

In a tweet about Rep. Devin Nunes's FISA memo in February 2018, which criticized the FBI's surveillance of Page and its use of the dossier, the Washington Examiner's Byron York noted that "no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information." Tanden responded by saying, "Even if this is true, hasn't the dossier been mostly proven to be true? It's amazing how comfortable the likes of Byron York are happy to run interference for Russians intervening in our elections." Tanden followed up with another tweet claiming that the "dossier has been mostly established as right."

Tanden's "Moscow Project" also released a flawed critique of the Republican FISA memo, with Tanden defending the FBI's surveillance. In addition, Tanden tweeted in April 2018 that the dossier was "started with funding by a GOP megadonor."

Although the conservative Free Beacon had hired the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, it said in October 2017 that it "had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier." It later emerged that Steele was not commissioned by Fusion GPS (and did not begin compiling his dossier) until Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias hired Fusion.

"What parts of the dossier have been disproven?" Tanden tweeted in January 2019. "I will wait."

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December 2019 report and subsequent declassifications undermined Steele's claims in the dossier. Horowitz said the Trump-Russia investigation concealed exculpatory information from the FISA court, and he criticized the Justice Department and FBI for at least 17 "significant errors and omissions" related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele. Declassified footnotes show the FBI knew Steele's dossier may have been compromised by Russian disinformation . Horowitz said FBI interviews with Steele's main source, U.S.-based and Russian-trained lawyer Igor Danchenko, "raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting."

FBI Director Christopher Wray called the FISA findings "utterly unacceptable" this year and concurred with the DOJ's conclusions that at least two of the four FISA warrants against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.

Nearly all the FISA signatories -- Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , fired FBI Director James Comey , and fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- indicated under oath they wouldn't have signed off on the surveillance if they knew then what they know now, and a declassified FBI spreadsheet showed the lack of corroboration for Steele's claims.

Other Russia-related claims Tanden has made could present sticking points during her confirmation process.

She tweeted on Oct. 31, 2016, that President Trump was a Russian "puppet" in part because there was a "Trump server connected to Russian bank" and tweeted again in December 2016 that Trump may have gotten "talking points from the server at Trump Tower connected to Russia."

The claim that a Russian Alfa Bank server was secretly communicating with a server at Trump Tower, also pushed by Steele, emerged in 2016, but Horowitz noted the FBI "concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links," and the Senate Intelligence Committee's August report did not find "covert communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel." Jake Sullivan, Biden's pick for national security adviser, also pushed the refuted Alfa Bank claim in 2016.

The week after Trump's victory, following reports that Russian cyberactors had targeted a number of state election systems, Tanden mused, "Why would hackers hack in unless they could change results?" The next day, she pushed back against criticism she received, tweeting, "Funny, I don't remember saying Russian hackers stole Hillary's victory." There is no evidence that Russian hackers changed any votes in 2016.

"Mueller found Russian interference in the election. He also found Trump coordinated with Russia. These are facts," Tanden tweeted in October.

Although Mueller's investigation concluded in 2019 that the Russian government interfered in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," the report "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

After the report's release, Tanden tweeted that "Mueller has failed the country" and "Adam Schiff > Robert Mueller." Earlier this year, Schiff released dozens of House Intelligence Committee witness interviews that showed Obama's top national security officials testified they hadn't seen direct evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

[Dec 01, 2020] Tony Blinken Replaces Mike Pompeo by Philip Giraldi

Dec 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

Tony Blinken Replaces Mike Pompeo Israel's friends will enjoy four more years in power PHILIP GIRALDI DECEMBER 1, 2020 1,900 WORDS 1 COMMENT REPLY Tweet Reddit Share Share Email Print More RSS

I for one am getting really excited by the staff that Honest Joe Biden is pulling together for the White House. When I first heard the name Tony Blinken during the Obama kleptocracy I assumed that he was one of those Ivy League lawyer types that proliferate in Washington, likely affiliated with the firm of Winken, Blinken and Nod, which we all know to be in partnership with Dewey, Cheatem and Howe. But I was wrong. He actually was affiliated to a much bigger fraternity, which one might call Zionists in government. You know, those nice well educated, always polite Jewish boys and sometimes girls who have self-designated as foreign policy experts and who work their way up through the various levels of power that might lead to the most coveted positions at the top in the state department and national security apparatus. Blinken was one such striver, and I began to feel the pricking in my thumbs that was telling me that something evil this way was coming when he was mentioned now and again as a former close adviser to the already beatified Barack Obama. And some in the media had observed with approval that he had more recently been briefing Joe Biden, particularly about Israel and the Middle East.

In an interview in the Times of Israel Blinken confirmed Biden's position on possibly reducing aid to Israel if the Jewish state were to do things that damaged U.S. interests. Blinken " reiterated Biden's position that he would not condition aid to Israel. He [Biden] is resolutely opposed to it. He would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions it makes, full stop."

The question of withholding aid is itself moot as Israel does nothing but "do things" that damage U.S. interests, knowing that no president or the Congress would dare to turn off the money tap, but it is an interesting unambiguous admission from Blinken that both he and Joe Biden put Israeli interests ahead of those of the United States.

Blinken's personal view of unfettered support for Israel allegedly derives from his stepfather having claimed to be a survivor of the so-called holocaust, a tale that he invoked several times during his acceptance speech on November 24 th . The Times interview concludes with Blinken asserting that "One of the things that's really shaped the vice president's career-long support for Israel and its security is the lesson of the Holocaust. He believes strongly that a secure Jewish homeland in Israel is the single best guarantee to ensure that never again will the Jewish people be threatened with destruction."

The indefatigable Israel-firster Tony Blinken has also served as a "conduit" to those in government for Israel advocacy groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And now that we have Tony Blinken as Secretary of State Designate the door will soon be wide open to the Israel Lobby.

If you need to know more about what Tony Blinken is all about you only have to look at his friends and his track record. Israel was inevitably quick off the mark in saluting the appointment, both in its media and through its mouthpieces in the United States. Stalwart Canadian Zionist Mark Dubowitz, who heads the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very fortunate to have them in public service."

The signal from FDD is particularly important as the organization is directed by the Israeli Embassy in Washington. FDD is the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran, Israel's bête noir . Its Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Bill Kristol. Its advisors and experts are mostly Jewish and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.

A recent expose by al-Jazeera exposed how FDD and other Lobby groups work directly with the Israeli government, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying on legal organizations, and both planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction, making it an Israeli agent by the definition of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has never sought to compel FDD to register under FARA. In fact, the U.S. government has never compelled any part of the vast and powerful Israel Lobby to register.

Tony, inevitably a Harvard graduate plus a JD from Columbia who has never served in the U.S. military, is inevitably a chicken-hawk because that is what America's Zionists and their political neocon wing are made of. It is a phenomenon that has often been noted. In 2017, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Tzipi Hotovely called out American Jews as "people that never send their children to fight for their country, most of the Jews don't have children serving as soldiers, going to the Marines, going to Afghanistan, or to Iraq. Most of them are having quite convenient lives " Of 1,300,000 active duty personnel in the U.S. armed forces, only 4,515 are Jewish.

This is how it works: instead of actually fighting in the wars you are promoting, you have your tax-exempt "educational foundations" pour tons of money into a project to go to war and corrupt the politicians to issue the necessary orders so unemployed kids from Arkansas and North Dakota can go off and die for Israel. You yourself remain safe at home, free to deliver bellicose speeches about how Iran threatens the world through its "meddling" in the Middle East. And, of course, about how the dumbass Palestinians have failed to accept the hand of Israel offered in peace.

That is what Tony's record demonstrates. Blinken has come a long way with Biden, all the way back to the Clinton Administration. And he he has always been there for the Jewish state. During the Obama Administration when relations with Israel were often strained, Blinken was the contact point for "Jewish leaders [differentiating] him from others in the White House at the time who weren't as sympathetic to Israel's position." Dennis Ross, often described as Israel's lawyer, praises him for having " an instinctive emotional attachment to Israel," referring to Blinken's frequently cited Jewish and refugee roots.

Other media reporting indicates that "Blinken was a top aide to Biden when the then-Sen­a­tor vot­ed to autho­rize the U.S. inva­sion of Iraq, and Blinken helped Biden devel­op a pro­pos­al to par­ti­tion Iraq into three sep­a­rate regions based on eth­nic and sec­tar­i­an iden­ti­ty. As deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er, Blinken sup­port­ed the dis­as­trous mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in Libya in 2011, and in 2018 he helped launch Wes­t­Ex­ec Advi­sors, a ​'strate­gic advi­so­ry firm' that is secre­tive about its clients, along with oth­er Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion alum­ni like Michèle Flournoy. Jonathan Guy­er writes in The Amer­i­can Prospect , ​'I learned that Blinken and Flournoy used their net­works to build a large client base at the inter­sec­tion of tech and defense. An Israeli sur­veil­lance start­up turned to them. So did a major U.S. defense com­pa­ny."

Beyond the intersection of government policy and personal profit exhibited by Blinken, the Washington Post in 2013 described Blinken as "[o]ne of the government's key players in drafting Syria policy" and he recalled that "This is a little bit personal to me, and any of us -- and I start with myself -- who had any responsibility for our Syria policy in the last administration has to acknowledge that we failed. Not for want of trying, but we failed." What Tony failed at was overthrowing Syria's legitimate government and turning the country over to the terrorist linked groups that he and Hillary and Obama were supporting.

The Democrats are particularly good at coming up with secretaries of state that one would like to forget, and that is saying quite a lot given the recent appointees by the Republicans. One recalls immediately the big-hearted Madeleine Albright, who found the killing of 500,000 Iraqi children by sanctions "worth it," or Hillary Clinton, who laughed out loud as she recalled the death of Libya ruler Muammar Ghaddafi by having a bayonet inserted up his anus. Clinton, who more than anyone launched the war against Africa's most developed nation, paraphrased Julius Caesar, who, upon returning from a rapid victory in Asia during the Rome's Second Civil war, described the event as "Veni, vidi, vici," in English "I came, I saw, I conquered." For the laughing Hillary it was "I came, I saw, he died!" The anarchy in Libya persists to this day and it included the payback killing of four U.S. Embassy employees in Benghazi in 2012, with Hillary and Susan Rice at the helm. It is generally believed that both Clinton and Rice might well have senior positions in the incoming Biden Administration.

But back to Blinken. Israel loved the way the Trump Administration showered favors upon it, nearly always without any quid pro quo . But for all his Dispensationalist fervor, salesmen like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were little more than goys who had been seduced by the myth of Israel. They were, as Lenin would have described it, little more than "useful idiots," which is allegedly an expression that certain Israeli politicians have used to describe their passionate Christian Zionist supporters in the U.S. Now, with Blinken, the Israeli hard liners will have the "real thing," a convincing Jewish boy who fatuously describes an apartheid Israel as "the anchor and foundation for democracy in the region." Tony believes in the Zionist cause and will do the Jewish state's bidding with a malleable Joe Biden. And if Joe should go, there is always Kamala Harris, who is married to a Jewish lawyer lobbyist. Win-win either way.

Even though it's early days, Blinken joins a number of other American Jews already tagged for senior positions, including Alejandro Mayorkas, the nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security who is a Latino Jew. Ron Klain, Biden's Chief of Staff and Janet Yellen, his pick for Treasury Secretary, are also Jewish. The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports how "Having Jewish men and women in prominent government positions is so standard that it's barely even a talking point " before observing that "The fact that some of President-elect Joe Biden's top cabinet picks are Jewish should be a source of pride for the community 'These people are being chosen because they're incredibly competent, because they're incredibly talented, because they're incredibly experienced,' Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told Haaretz in a phone interview." Indeed, if one believes Greenblatt pressure from the Israel Lobby, the media and billionaire donors as well as networking by the Jewish mafia inside the government itself have nothing to do with it.

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 is inform@cnionline.org .

Majority of One , says: December 1, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT • 58 minutes ago

Only good thing that could come out of this development, should the Harris-Biden selectees actually come into power is that this massive infusion of rabid Zionists into high levels in the Demo administration is so blatant that the awakeners will increase in numbers and in determination.

[Nov 29, 2020] Derek (Lid on Likes) (#Kraken Emeritus) on Twitter- -8-So easy to set up headfakes when the media is committed to attacking e

Nov 29, 2020 | twitter.com

17/ (watching for the "ear-reddening move") Quote Tweet Techno Fog @Techno_Fog · Nov 25 Weissmann protests b/c the Flynn case implicates the corrupt Special Counsel. They didn't prosecute Flynn b/c they thought he was guilty (FBI agents didn't think Flynn lied).

Team Mueller went after Flynn so they could build an obstruction case against Trump. Corrupt motive. twitter.com/AWeissmann_/st

[Nov 28, 2020] Congress created the five-member Assassination Records Review Board in 1992 as part of a law requiring the release of all Kennedy assassination documents within 25 years.

Nov 28, 2020 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , says: Website November 27, 2020 at 1:57 pm GMT • 5.3 hours ago

Trump did pull out of the TPP trade agreement, stopped the caravans from the south, and pushed back on climate change (which is an effort to triple energy prices for consumers). He did not start new wars but did not pull out of any. Its difficult to tell if he's a con man or just unable to lead, like appointing the worst deep staters to key positions who stabbed him in the back. But he did do everything Israel ordered, except attack Syria and Iran. So far as fighting the deep state, he wouldn't even declassify JFK stuff. From my blog:

Apr 30, 2018 – The Deep State Wins!

G2mil is right again! First, a repost for background:

Dec 18, 2017 – Another JFK Coup Fact Revealed

Congress created the five-member Assassination Records Review Board in 1992 as part of a law requiring the release of all Kennedy assassination documents within 25 years. The law authorized the president in office in 2017 to block releases if he deems it would harm US intelligence, law enforcement, military, or diplomatic interests. President Trump had no plans to block anything and the Deep State threw a fit and refused to obey the law. To avoid a confrontation, Trump allowed a few more months to "review" most files. Just under a third of the materials were released on December 15th, an estimated 85,000 pages worth, which had long been categorized as irrelevant to the JFK assassination.

Among these "irrelevant" documents is a July 1978 memo to an attorney on the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It stated that the FBI was unable to locate the original fingerprints lifted from the rifle found at the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Dallas Police turned those over a few days after the assassination and never got them back. Top FBI officials told House investigators that finding the prints would be a "mammoth research effort" and refused. So either the FBI bungled its most important case by losing key evidence or someone intentionally destroyed that evidence because the fingerprints on the rifle didn't match Oswald's.

Last October, President Donald Trump gave agencies six more months to finish this 25+ year review of material that might damage national security. Upcoming deadlines:

March 12: FBI, CIA and other agencies must report to the archives any material they want withheld

March 26: National Archives makes its recommendations to the president on what material warrants further withholding

April 26: The president's deadline for release of all remaining records.

The best stuff will never be released because the truth about the JFK coup will never be revealed, unless Trump sends General Kelly and US Marines to these federal offices to rough up some people.

____________________________________________________

As the deadline approached last week, the major media mostly ignored this news:

"Trump announced on Thursday that the public must wait another three years or more before seeing material that must remain classified for national security reasons -- more than five decades after Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The National Archives released its last batch of more than 19,000 records on Thursday. But an undisclosed amount of material remains under wraps because Trump said the potential harm to U.S. national security, law enforcement or foreign affairs is "of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure."

The Real World , says: November 27, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMT • 56 minutes ago
@John Q Duped

Obviously John F was removed for other reasons.

Seemingly, for publicly threatening dismemberment of both the US intelligence apparatus and the banking cartel. Neither of those entities are going to have that!

[Nov 27, 2020] Congress created the five-member Assassination Records Review Board in 1992 as part of a law requiring the release of all Kennedy assassination documents within 25 years.

Nov 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , says: Website November 27, 2020 at 1:57 pm GMT • 5.3 hours ago

Trump did pull out of the TPP trade agreement, stopped the caravans from the south, and pushed back on climate change (which is an effort to triple energy prices for consumers). He did not start new wars but did not pull out of any. Its difficult to tell if he's a con man or just unable to lead, like appointing the worst deep staters to key positions who stabbed him in the back. But he did do everything Israel ordered, except attack Syria and Iran. So far as fighting the deep state, he wouldn't even declassify JFK stuff. From my blog:

Apr 30, 2018 – The Deep State Wins!

G2mil is right again! First, a repost for background:

Dec 18, 2017 – Another JFK Coup Fact Revealed

Congress created the five-member Assassination Records Review Board in 1992 as part of a law requiring the release of all Kennedy assassination documents within 25 years. The law authorized the president in office in 2017 to block releases if he deems it would harm US intelligence, law enforcement, military, or diplomatic interests. President Trump had no plans to block anything and the Deep State threw a fit and refused to obey the law. To avoid a confrontation, Trump allowed a few more months to "review" most files. Just under a third of the materials were released on December 15th, an estimated 85,000 pages worth, which had long been categorized as irrelevant to the JFK assassination.

Among these "irrelevant" documents is a July 1978 memo to an attorney on the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It stated that the FBI was unable to locate the original fingerprints lifted from the rifle found at the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Dallas Police turned those over a few days after the assassination and never got them back. Top FBI officials told House investigators that finding the prints would be a "mammoth research effort" and refused. So either the FBI bungled its most important case by losing key evidence or someone intentionally destroyed that evidence because the fingerprints on the rifle didn't match Oswald's.

Last October, President Donald Trump gave agencies six more months to finish this 25+ year review of material that might damage national security. Upcoming deadlines:

March 12: FBI, CIA and other agencies must report to the archives any material they want withheld

March 26: National Archives makes its recommendations to the president on what material warrants further withholding

April 26: The president's deadline for release of all remaining records.

The best stuff will never be released because the truth about the JFK coup will never be revealed, unless Trump sends General Kelly and US Marines to these federal offices to rough up some people.

____________________________________________________

As the deadline approached last week, the major media mostly ignored this news:

"Trump announced on Thursday that the public must wait another three years or more before seeing material that must remain classified for national security reasons -- more than five decades after Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The National Archives released its last batch of more than 19,000 records on Thursday. But an undisclosed amount of material remains under wraps because Trump said the potential harm to U.S. national security, law enforcement or foreign affairs is "of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure."

[Nov 26, 2020] The historic Trump presidency emasculated globalism by Patrick J. Buchanan

Nov 26, 2020 | www.wnd.com

The historic Trump presidency emasculated globalism Pat Buchanan notes how the elite Bush-type Republicans have been silenced Patrick J. Buchanan By Patrick J. Buchanan Published November 26, 2020 at 6:39pm Share on Facebook Tweet P Share Email Print In the first two decades of the century, President-elect Joe Biden's choice for secretary of state supported U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He was an ever-reliable liberal interventionist.

This same Antony Blinken could spend the first years of a Biden presidency helping extricate our country from the misbegotten wars he championed. What establishment Democrats like Biden and Blinken helped to do in previous administrations, they will likely now have to undo.

Who effected this sea change in national thinking?

Donald Trump. Much that was said and believed before he came down the escalator in 2015 is no longer said or believed by the majority of Americans.

And no institution has been more altered than the Republican Party.

How I beat election fraud in America's most corrupt state TRENDING: Employees melt down after learning company is publishing prominent conservative Jordan Peterson's book: Report

George H.W. Bush's vision of a "New World Order," launched at the after-party of his Gulf War victory, died with his presidency.

George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy to "end tyranny in our world" has been forgotten. Bush Republicans no longer speak for the party on foreign policy, trade or immigration.

NATO will never be the same again after Trump rudely demanded that freeloading nations pay their fair share of the collective defense or the Americans would pack up and come home from Europe.

Former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis may call for the ash-canning of the phrase "America First." He will fail. For, as both national motto and national policy, the slogan has put down roots in American soil because it comports with the will of the silent majority.

Whatever the establishment believes, in the clash between nationalism and globalism, globalism has lost America.

Moreover, the world is going this way.

Does not Xi Jinping put his own country first as he claims for China all the waters and islands for hundreds of miles into the East and South China seas? Does not Vladimir Putin put his own country first as he seeks to bring back under Moscow's wing the former republics of the Russian federation?

Does not President Erdogan put Turkey first as he sends arms and troops to pursue his country's interests in Libya, Syria, Cyprus, the South Caucasus and the Eastern Mediterranean in clashes with Greece?

What does Bibi Netanyahu put first, if not his own country, Israel?

If country and nation are not first in the hearts and minds of Americans, what should replace them? Some nonexistent New World Order? The U.N.? NATO? A multilateral caucus of global institutions?

Under Trump, economic nationalism has displaced free trade globalism as the trade policy of the party and government.

The GOP elite that backed Bill Clinton on NAFTA, supported a new transnational World Trade Organization, invited China to join the club and accorded Beijing most-favored-nation trade status is now silent.

Tariffs to force open foreign markets and punish predator-traders who take advantage of American workers have replaced the free trade fundamentalism that had been dogma since Dwight Eisenhower's days.

Nor is the Republican Party likely to return to free trade, as long as "China First" is the undeclared policy pursued by the nation that has now displaced us as the world's leading manufacturing power.

The George Bush-John McCain Republican Party was for amnesty for illegals and open borders for new migrants. Today's GOP supports the deportation of illegals and the 30-foot Trump Wall on the Mexican border.

[Nov 26, 2020] Did Jews fail to deliver- by Israel Shamir

Nov 26, 2020 | www.unz.com

Did Jews Fail to Deliver? ISRAEL SHAMIR NOVEMBER 18, 2020 2,300 WORDS 161 COMMENTS REPLY Tweet Reddit Share Share Email Print More

President Trump gave to Israel all she could wish for; he hoped that in return, the Jews would give him America to rule another term. A simple give-and-take, but it didn't work out as intended. If he were to run for the presidency of Israel, he would have it. If Brooklyn were to decide who'd inhabit the White House, he would be the Chosen one. But Trump's plan to bribe US Jews by bearing gifts to Israel failed completely.

East Europeans define the difference between Jews and Hungarians (or Poles) as follows. All of these would sell their grandmother for a fistful of coins; but only a Jew would deliver. This non-delivery of America will be remembered by future US presidents. Perhaps we witness a defining moment for the downturn in American support of Israel, in direct contradiction to the main thesis of our colleague Philip Giraldi who said this week that "Israel's Power Is Unlimited". Why did it happen? The US Jews didn't take the bait. And now for details.

"Zionist" is a euphemism for "Jew", isn't it? Up to a point. Zionists, that is Jews (and others) who care and work for Israel, are strongly supportive of the US President, but Jews that matter, that is elite liberal progressive US Jews, won't support Trump even if he were to pave Tel Aviv with golden bricks. Three out of four US Jews voted for Joe Biden , about the same proportion of Jews who voted for Barack Obama, though Obama was quite critical towards Israel, while Trump did all the Israelis could wish for.

The Jews that cared more about Israel voted for Trump, but they are powerless. They have money, they have good positions in society, but they aren't top dogs. The Orthodox Jews are for Trump; not so much for the sake of Israel but rather for his conservative agenda. They do not like gay parades, do not care for transgenderism, and for them, Black Lives do not matter much. Social justice is not their credo.They have little influence outside their own milieu. They voted 77 to 23 for Trump. Right-wing Jews are strongly Zionist and support Trump. Their publication FrontPage Magazine is all out for Trump. But they would be for Trump even if he hadn't left Iran agreement.

Polls of Jewish voters show that they do not care much about the steps taken by Trump in order to please Israel. They are worried about Covid pandemics, about medical care, while economics occupies fifth place in their concerns, and Israeli-related acts are at the very bottom. The only place where one can notice some positive change is Florida, where Jews actually shifted in noticeable numbers to Republicans. But even there it seems to be a part of a Latino shift rather than a separate phenomenon.

Elite Jews voted for Biden and for Dems as advised by the NY Times. For them, Trump's friendship with PM Netanyahu was a drawback rather than an advantage. If they care for Israel, they would prefer a quieter approach as usual, within the Two States paradigm. None of what Trump did for Israel found a response in their hearts.

According to the AJC (American Jewish Committee) Biden bested Trump on every issue including handling the coronavirus pandemic, 78%-19%; combatting terrorism, 71%-26%; dealing with Iran, 71%-27%; handling crime, 72%-24%, and strengthening U.S.-Israel relations, 54%-42%. (The Republican Jewish Coalition has slightly better numbers, as they polled older Jews.) Trump has expressed frustration that his Israel decisions have not garnered greater support in the Jewish community, and many activists have spoken of "treason".

If Trump had known in advance that courting Jews would bring neither votes nor political profit, probably he would have wasted less time in the Zionist cul-de-sac. Jews are connected with the Dem Party, remember! All Jewish congressmen but two are Democrats; strongly pro-Israel Senator Chuck Schumer, the Dem leader in the Senate, is as hostile to Trump as any man. Only those Jews really matter; only those Jews have their unique access to media, movies, art, politics, and universities. Perhaps they would act differently if Israel were in danger; but thanks to the generous politics of Donald Trump they didn't need to worry about Israel. (Preceding American presidents were aware of this catch, and were careful not to give too much to Israel. This was also the view of Dr Kissinger).

Israeli Jews are much more pro-Trump than their American cousins. If Israel were a US state, it would be deep red. They feel gratitude to the man who moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. They appreciate his drive for normalisation with the Arab states; his non-interference in the Palestinian issue; his recognition of the Golan Heights. Being more conservative, they are on the same page as Trump on many issues. However, even before Trump, the majority of Israeli Likud-voters are and have been for the Republicans for many years. They did not like Obama and Clinton, and they do not care for Biden. A prominent high tech Israeli personality prophesied that Biden would bring disaster for Israel.

However, in Israel, too, there is a sharp division between elites and Deplorable masses. The Deplorables support Netanyahu and Trump, vote domestically for Likud or religious parties. The Deplorables rule Israel for over twenty years; Netanyahu is the Israeli Trump who succeeded to keep power.

The Israeli elites support Biden. For them Trump is a mirror image of their own PM Netanyahu, the man they hate with gusto. The problem with Israeli elites is that they have lost their ability to govern. Their parties disintegrate; their causes are lost. If there is a common cause for Israeli elites it is rejection of PM Netanyahu mirroring the NeverTrump spirit of American elites, and their belief that they are elites and destined to govern.

They want to get rid of Netanyahu, like the US elites wanted to get rid of Trump. This desire caused three rounds of national elections in the last year, but despite trying hard, they could not vote him out. Now they hope he will be removed by the Supreme Court, and by massive demonstrations near the PM's residence. They say he is corrupt, that he takes bribes, that he didn't save Israel from Coronavirus – just like the Dems had tried to impeach Trump for ridiculous reasons. They want Netanyahu to die in jail, just like the Dems hope to see Trump rotting in Guantanamo. (There are hundreds of women ready to swear Trump almost-raped them fifty years ago when they were underage.)

The case against Netanyahu is feeble at best. He received a pack of cigars and a box of champagne from an American film producer; he promised to help a newspaper publisher if he would stop attacking him. A murky case connects him to a German submarine sale, but it is too opaque even for Netanyahu haters.The PM had been indicted by the state attorney, but by Israeli law, he does not have to resign unless found guilty. Israel is experiencing huge and violent demos against Netanyahu almost daily. But the deplorables still support their Bibi, and vote for him. As opposed to Trump, Netanyahu has a newspaper, and it makes a lot of difference.

It would be nice if there were some positive differences between the Israeli Left and Right on important issues. No such luck. There is practically no difference between Likud and the liberal parties regarding the really important Palestinian question. The Left-wing and Right-wing Jews are on the same page: they do not want to grant equality to non-Jews. They treat Palestinians much worse than the Blacks were treated in Alabama a hundred years ago. They aren't even interested in Palestinians.

The Israeli liberal left is interested in Lesbians and Gays; the main point of the election campaign of the once-radical-left Meretz (I was their spokesman 40 years ago) was gay adoption and access to surrogate mothers. And that in a society where workers earn less and less every year, while houses cost more and more; where regular employment is a dream for workers; where trade unions collapsed, and instead of employment, workers are offered a contract with unlimited working hours, no holidays and no security at all. All in a country where Palestinians are not allowed even to bathe in the sea a few miles from their besieged villages.

Another topic of the liberal elite is their fight against religion.They are equal haters, hating religious Jews as well as Christians and Muslims. The outbreak of Covid provided them with a new reason to hate the believing Jews: they go to synagogues instead of staying at home or going to demos against Netanyahu. I do not know any redeeming feature of this group, but they are quite similar to liberal elites elsewhere.

In France, too, the ruling elite hates Islam and promotes Charlie Hebdo; but they hate Christianity, too. The first thing Macron did in the present lockdown was to ban the Mass. And his support groups, the elite liberals, were mighty pleased. In this video , you can see young liberals asking police to disperse Catholics praying outside of Church. The same happens in Israel, and in New York, where police have interfered with praying Jews.

The main difference between the populists of Netanyahu and the elitists is in their attitude to ordinary people. The populists exude empathy while elitists just deplore. At the practical level, they do not differ. Both are equally bad for workers, for ordinary Jews and Palestinians. Populists waste public money on Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, while elitists offer free Nepalese surrogate mothers for every gay.

As for Covid lockdowns, the elitists approve of them, just like Biden and his Dems do. The deplorables dislike them greatly, for they lose their jobs, and they can't afford it, but they still do not rebel.

In the US, the populists of Trump did not get much from his first cadence. A possible solution would be the integration of left populists and right populists, of Trump taking Tulsi Gabbard as his VP or at least as Secretary of State, of Trump giving every American citizen medical care as in Europe, of him providing quality education free, of him taxing billionaires and supporting workers. Such a ticket would be unbeatable. And stop bothering with the Jews and Israel; they have nuisance value, but nothing more.

Now we can explain why the Trump Zionist Offensive didn't help him. The US (as well as US Jews and Israel) is split into incompetent but cocksure elites and gullible but angry Deplorables. The vote in the recent elections was a test of loyalty: are you with the elites or with the Deplorables (in Hebrew, עמך)? In the US, where many Jews actually belong to elites, even those outside accept elite values and narratives and still hope to get invited in. A US Jew has to despair to join Trump and his counter-élites, and they are still hopeful.

The Jewish newspaper Forward tells of "two young Jewish political activists who formed the Jewish Unity PAC and raised all of $31,000, and every cent of it was spent supporting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris." It's not that they care for Biden, but these young people know where their bright future may lie.

In Israel, the elites are against Netanyahu, but the majority of Israelis, Jews or non-Jews, have already despaired of being invited into the traditional elites. So they have no problem voting for Netanyahu or supporting Trump. However, the Israel of Netanyahu and his Deplorables is much less attractive to US Jews than the old elitist Labour-ruled Ashkenazi Israel. They do not admit it; certainly not in writing, but there is no social lift for a US Jew in going to Israel or even in supporting Israel. Thus Zionism as a cause has lost its attraction for US Jews. And probably this change is irreversible: the old Ashkenazi elite of Israel is gone, and it won't come back. It has been supplanted by Oriental Jews, by religious folk, by the Ashkenazi counter-elites of Likud. There is no profit in courting Israel as much as Trump did.

If Trump does, despite enormous odds, gain his second term, perhaps he will learn the lesson and treat Israel as Jewish Liberia. It would be a great relief for the US and for the people of Israel. Being cut off from the US supply pipeline, Israel may yet make peace with Palestinians and become a normal Middle Eastern state. The US won't be driven into far-away wars. It would be better if Trump had understood earlier, but better late than never.

American support is as dangerous for Israel as Russian support is for Armenia. Armenians had 30 years to make peace with their neighbours but they didn't for they were sure of Russian support. Israelis had 50 years, but they didn't because of the US support. Armenians already came to grief, and for Israel it is coming, unless they will disengage from their protective superpower. So the special relations between the US elites and Israel are fully exhausted for both sides.

And meanwhile, Israel sits on the fence. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose not to refer to Joe Biden as president-elect during a press conference Monday, saying instead that Biden was "supposed to be appointed the next president", reported Haaretz .

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review .


Altai , says: November 18, 2020 at 2:16 pm GMT • 8.3 days ago

though Obama was quite critical towards Israel

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NIgfiSzCy1o?feature=oembed

Fixed that for you.

though Obama was less vocally supportive towards Israel

TG , says: November 18, 2020 at 3:07 pm GMT • 8.3 days ago

But one must remember: both parties are completely totally pro-Israel. Meaning the there is no reward for a politician in supporting Israel, only punishment for those that don't.

And while this might or might not completely apply to Trump, most modern American politicians don't care all that much about winning elections. They care about doing the bidding of their wealthy patrons, and getting rewarded on the side. It's about putting on a show for the masses, and as in professional wrestling, both the 'winners' and the 'losers' get paid. Sitting on corporate boards, distinguished positions in academia, cushy book contracts, the press treating them like senior statesmen, awards and accolades, that sort of thing.

Consider also: Trump presumably will continue to run businesses and will need contacts and support etc from other wealthy people, many of whom of course will be Jewish. Not pissing off the Jews might still be critical to him in the days to come

BuelahMan , says: November 18, 2020 at 3:51 pm GMT • 8.3 days ago

I find it most difficult to believe what a jew says that jews think, especially when it is geared towards goy.

Of course, only because I am antisemitic not that jews lie with abandon, covering for the tribe in some way.

saggy , says: Website November 18, 2020 at 5:01 pm GMT • 8.2 days ago

Jews were the prime movers in the effort to impeach Clinton as told by David Brock in 'Blinded by the Right', and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to impeach Trump as was widely publicized, and yet the response of Clinton and Trump was to redouble their efforts to please the Jews . probably to 'follow the money'.

A123 , says: November 18, 2020 at 6:07 pm GMT • 8.2 days ago

Did Jews Fail to Deliver?

Which Jews Failed to Deliver What?

The article is much better than the headline.

The author concedes that there is no "Jewish Side" and in fact details how there are significant numbers of Jews on opposing sides.

However, in Israel, too, there is a sharp division between elites and Deplorable masses. The Deplorables support Netanyahu and Trump, vote domestically for Likud or religious parties.

The Israeli elites support Biden. For them Trump is a mirror image of their own PM Netanyahu, the man they hate with gusto. The problem with Israeli elites is that they have lost their ability to govern

The virulent Anti-Semitism of Islam is aggressively trying to contaminate certain western parties such as Labour and the DNC. However, movements like Muslim BLM are generating so much backlash that they are already losing traction. In the U.S.:

-- Conservatives are likely to join the Orthodox, majority voting for GOP Populism and workers.
-- Reform and Reconstructionist are likely to stay aligned against workers with the Blue SJW Elites of the Globalist DNC.

I find it baffling that Jews openly oppose Judeo-Christian values by staying with SJW "woke" apostasy. However, it is a fact that huge numbers of Jews act against their own self interest.

It is not unique to them. Huge numbers of Christians make the same mistake siding with SJW deviancy.

PEACE

RealAmerican , says: November 18, 2020 at 6:15 pm GMT • 8.2 days ago
@BuelahMan

You cannot be serious BuelahMan? Take your blinders off.
Those that you speak of are indeed many, but not so Mr. Shamir.
Great read Mr. Shamir. Thank you!

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: Website November 18, 2020 at 8:28 pm GMT • 8.1 days ago
@BuelahMan

Israel Shamir is not a Jew.

No Friend Of The Devil , says: November 18, 2020 at 9:22 pm GMT • 8.0 days ago

Republicans are not courting American Jews in order to win their votes. Republicans are courting American Jews in order to win their wallets and positive press coverage. There are not enough Rebublican Jews to sway an election, but there is enough Republican Jewish money and Republican Jewish media for the Republican Party to pay attention to them.

Andrea Iravani

Chris Moore , says: Website November 19, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT • 7.9 days ago
@No Friend Of The Devil Bingo. Plus, to fend of the inevitable, demagogic "anti-Semitism" accusations from liberals, leftists and Democrats, and their stooges in MSM.

The "anti-Semitism" accusation has paid off well for Jews. It's kind of like the "Holocaust" wail -- the gift that keeps on giving. Someday, all that Jewish dogma will be recognized as the grift it's always been. Not today, but maybe tomorrow, or the day after

Then we can watch ALL the grifters scramble for cover. Maybe they'll hide in an attic. Then they'll make up some story of epic persecution and start the cycle over again.

How many times will Charlie Brown fall for it? How many times will Charlie Chan fall for it? We'll find out.

Anonymous [208] Disclaimer , says: November 19, 2020 at 5:24 am GMT • 7.7 days ago

Ah but you forget that Trump's political base is Evangelical Christians and they are Zionists.

The big money may come from conservative Jews (like Adelson) but his popular support is from Christians.

anon [321] Disclaimer , says: November 19, 2020 at 5:50 am GMT • 7.7 days ago

Jews dumped Trump for Biden because he didn't do enough. With Biden they get even more support for Israel, including putting more troops in Syria to finally take out Assad, and perhaps finally going to war with Iran, which Trump wouldn't do. Plus Biden will give them billions of taxpayer money to run the Diversity Industrial Complex, with every government agency now requiring diversity training, and lots more diversity and race initiatives everywhere, all rackets run by Jews, with a few token blacks. And then there's media censorship, which Trump won't give them but Biden/Harris are already putting on the agenda.

niceland , says: November 19, 2020 at 5:58 am GMT • 7.7 days ago

Interesting article. Thanks Mr Shamir.

JWalters , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:05 am GMT • 7.7 days ago

"Biden bested Trump on every issue including strengthening U.S.-Israel relations, 54%-42%."

Biden puts a more "civilized" face on Israel's inhumane ethnic cleansing. Trump was so obvious and garish about it. Trump ran the risk of calling too much attention to Israel's crimes. But "both sides" were still willing to have Israel grab all that Trump was "giving" (though illegal and not Trump's to give). As others have noted, Trump's payoff may come after he is out of office. Much is theater.

Zarathustra , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:14 am GMT • 7.7 days ago

Come to think about it Trump could make good money opening a TV station. all sane Americans would watch it. The advertisement money would just be poring in. This would be excellent thing.
Trump has many followers. Trump would give his followers some hope.

Justsaying , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:24 am GMT • 7.7 days ago

The purported failure of Jews to deliver presupposes Jews are under some sort of obligation to deliver. Jews are in total control. They have the sworn, unsolicited and total subservience of any American presidential candidate of substance. Quite the contrary, it is the Jewish colony of America that must deliver to its colonial master.

Zarathustra , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:31 am GMT • 7.6 days ago
@Zarathustra

Also from there he could criticize Biden's administration and make Biden miserable for all four years.

RedpilledAF , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:33 am GMT • 7.6 days ago

A Jewish dialectic. By design and effort. That's what it always comes down to. That is the vicious cycle that needs to broken. Jewish thesis, Jewish antithesis, Jewish synthesis, rinse and repeat.

Ghali , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:48 am GMT • 7.6 days ago

It is true that Democrats are bought and owned by Jews. But, I have to agree with Andre Joyce. Jews are very unreliable people, possibly the most unreliable of backers. Trump exhausted his usefulness to Jews and they threw him under the bus. Jews want someone as racist Zionist as Biden.

In Biden Jews find a long time obedient Gentile servant. Biden will do what Obama and Trump refused to do. He is a well-known war criminal and he will leash war on the Middle East.

Clay Alexander , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:50 am GMT • 7.6 days ago

Great article. Did the Jews deliver ? The question should be did any one group deliver ? Trump was way to erratic and made way to many enemies and always seemed to say the first thing that popped into his head. A good example of one of the stranger incidents was in Oct. 2018 when Rap star and mental defective Kanye West sat in the Oval Office and went a non-stop, rambling, incoherent tirade. The President of the United States sat there like a moron nodding approvingly it made Trump look foolish and cheapened all Americans. He sunk himself with his big mouth and his tantrums. As far as the voting went it brings to mind the Joe Pesci character from Casino in the end they all had enough.

Hiram of Tyre , says: November 19, 2020 at 6:52 am GMT • 7.6 days ago
@Chris Moore

Anti-semitism , Holocaust ; "it's a trick" .

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9DKeLLlaws8?feature=oembed

chris , says: November 19, 2020 at 7:00 am GMT • 7.6 days ago

Yeah, liberal Jews profess universal values, they keep their fervent support for Israel hidden, because that gives away the fact that they are hypocrits. It's like the whore that they're banging at every opportunity. And now Trump comes out and admonishes them in the open to vote for him because of the jewlery and boob job he's bought her – as much as they like it, they are profoundly mortified by his crude appeal. . and of course they know that she's being taken care through all the institutions they're supporting.

In some sense, Trump missing the boat on this issue is like Hillary selling herself as a war hawk, when that didn't actually sell anymore; she had missed the boat by 40 years.

gT , says: November 19, 2020 at 7:40 am GMT • 7.6 days ago

No, the Jews did not fail to deliver. Jews always support both sides in any conflict so that whoever wins they can claim to have supported / made the winning side...

AnonStarter , says: November 19, 2020 at 9:54 am GMT • 7.5 days ago

It would be nice if there were some positive differences between the Israeli Left and Right on important issues. No such luck. There is practically no difference between Likud and the liberal parties regarding the really important Palestinian question.

I don't find it all that different here.

Quite a few Jews on the American left expose their Zionist underbelly whenever the question of Palestine arises...

Verymuchalive , says: November 19, 2020 at 10:12 am GMT • 7.5 days ago

American support is as dangerous for Israel as Russian support is for Armenia. Armenians had 30 years to make peace with their neighbours but they didn't for they were sure of Russian support. Israelis had 50 years, but they didn't because of the US support. Armenians already came to grief, and for Israel it is coming, unless they will disengage from their protective superpower. So the special relations between the US elites and Israel are fully exhausted for both sides.

Excellent article, sticking more or less dispassionately to the facts. Also, it draws the logical inference of these facts, as outlined above. The economic collapse of America is only a matter of time, and with it the collapse of its subsidies to Israel. History is full of instances of small states encouraged in their intransigence by their patrons, whether intentionally or indirectly. With the loss of the patrons, their clients are then forced to agree terms at very unfavourable conditions, compared to what they would have got, had they negotiated previously.

God's Fool , says: November 19, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMT • 7.4 days ago

Obama critical of Israel? Are you kidding or may be misleading? Ehud Barak is on record (Charlie Rose Show now defunct) stating unequivocally that the other Barak had done more for Israel than any other American president before him.

No matter how you cut it, Jews alone have a way too much power in the U. S Take for example a mundane decision to cap number of people that should get together for the Thanksgiving: not 9 or 11 but exactly 10, per Dr. Ranit Mishori (she is an Israeli woman) on PBS Newshour last night. Her explanation was very disarming when asked about it. Oh, she said, "they" decided that ten was the right number guess how many people does it take to form a "community of Israel" or the so called Minyan?" TEN! It's all about Jews and Israel even at the freaking NIH (the National Institute of Health).

Ron T, , says: November 19, 2020 at 2:28 pm GMT • 7.3 days ago

Unquestioning and unequivocal support for Israel has become a part of the Republican platform, mostly a result of Evangelical Christians, a large denomination of dupes who believe that the modern state of Israel, established by European colonists in Palestine, is somehow related to the biblical Israel and biblical prophecy.

Jews voted the same way the have for generations as they are assured that Biden is going to provide unquestioning support to Israel too.

Their Jewish votes hardly matter as they are mostly concentrated in New York and California, which are not swing states. It is Jewish power in media and campaign donations that matter, which both candidates could not do without.

76239 , says: November 19, 2020 at 8:17 pm GMT • 7.1 days ago

"If Trump does, despite enormous odds, gain his second term, perhaps he will learn the lesson and treat Israel as Jewish Liberia. It would be a great relief for the US and for the people of Israel. Being cut off from the US supply pipeline, Israel may yet make peace with Palestinians and become a normal Middle Eastern state. The US won't be driven into far-away wars. It would be better if Trump had understood earlier, but better late than never"

I doubt this. The irony is that the same deep state that pushed regime change hook or crook in Bolivia, Iran, and Venezuela is the same deep state that pushed for regime change in the USA against Trump in 2016 (Russia controls Trump bs) and again with the voting fraud of 2020. And yet Trump seems to like regime change when it benefits his Israeli and Saudi patrons. You live by the sword; you die by the sword.

There is the well reasoned narrative that the last US president who took on the CIA with vengeance had his head blown apart in Dallas. The real power in Washington is with the merging of the military, intelligence, silicon valley tech community. The civilian leadership from both parties in the US are mere order takers from this oligarchy.

Government is just a means for the elite to impoverish the public and strip every liberty from them. They are not part of the answer. They are part of the problem.

Iva , says: November 19, 2020 at 11:46 pm GMT • 6.9 days ago

Trump condemns globalism, touts nationalistic view of foreign affairs at U.N."The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots," Trump said. "The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-touts-nationalistic-view-of-foreign-affairs-at-un/2019/09/24/e4a8486a-ded2-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html This is why Jews and pro globalists want Biden and Harris. Barbra Lerner Spectre speaks about multiculti and Israel expels black Jews giving them the one way tickets, because "they do not mix well with other Israelis' ' . Hypocrisy in full spectrum. They just want other countries ( not Israel) to lose their traditions, customs and values. When the society is divided and broken it is easier to rule throwing various groups against each other's throats. While groups fight with each other, they pursue their agendas unnoticed. Today Trump's lawyers were talking about lawyers who wanted to represent Trump getting threats, even death treats. How did this happen in the US? Who's "accomplishment" this is?

geokat62 , says: November 21, 2020 at 2:27 pm GMT • 5.3 days ago
@Occasional lurker ss="comment-text">

Mostly Jews vaguely support Israel For most liberal Jews, Israel is deep, deep down on their political agenda.

You must've missed this headline in the Jerusalem Post:

US Jews strongly support Israel, new poll shows

94% say that if Jewish state "no longer existed tomorrow," it would be a "tragedy."

https://m.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/US-Jews-strongly-support-Israel-new-poll-shows

anon [235] Disclaimer , says: November 22, 2020 at 3:53 pm GMT • 4.3 days ago
@Occasional lurker

Obama did a lot .He tolerated Israeli attacks on Gaza. He offered 40 billions worth of new dole to israel in exchange for Israel delaying the commission of the illegal activity ( postponing of the settlement for 3-4 month ).
He made sure Sisi was not opposed and Morsi was deposed . He got USA involved in Syria and tolerated open advocacy for war by AIPAC against Syria . He tolerated the opposition to Park 51 construction mounted by Neocons . In his time Islamophobia introduced by the neocons skyrocketed .
He campaigned for anti-American charlatan like Joe Liberman . Israel got him do a lot of damages to Iran economically and physically

Buzz Baldrin , says: November 23, 2020 at 8:39 am GMT • 3.6 days ago

I missed the part about Sheldon Adelson's series of campaign contributions to Trump

[Nov 26, 2020] The Cunning Plot to Kill Kennedy - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Nov 26, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

The Cunning Plot to Kill Kennedy By Jacob G. Hornberger Global Research, November 25, 2020 The Future of Freedom Foundation 20 November 2020 Region: USA Theme: Intelligence , Media Disinformation

3

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=&app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df30e5fde442781%26domain%3Dwww.globalresearch.ca%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.globalresearch.ca%252Ff2493774710fba8%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fcunning-plot-kill-kennedy%2F5730408&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false

https://apis.google.com/u/0/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&count=true&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fcunning-plot-kill-kennedy%2F5730408&gsrc=3p&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en.xwJu9mnmcMg.O%2Fam%3DwQE%2Fd%3D1%2Fct%3Dzgms%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPhziFv0ZUgwIM1cgUEDP9FSX8uzg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1606371241463&_gfid=I0_1606371241463&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca&pfname=&rpctoken=37815408 5

If anyone murders a federal official, you can be assured of one thing: the feds will do everything they can to ensure that everyone involved in the crime is brought to justice. It's like when someone kills a cop. The entire police force mobilizes to capture, arrest, and prosecute everyone involved in killing the cop. The phenomenon is even more pronounced at the federal level, especially given the overwhelming power of the federal government.

Yet, the exact opposite occurred in the Kennedy assassination. The entire effort immediately became to pin the crime solely on a communist ex-U.S. Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald and to shut down any aggressive investigation into whether others were involved in the crime.

What's up with that? That's not the way we would expect federal officials to handle the assassination of any federal official, especially the president of the United States. We would expect them to do everything -- even torture a suspect -- in order to capture and arrest everyone who may have participated in the crime.

For example, just three days after the assassination and after Oswald himself had been murdered, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach sent out a memo stating,

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

How in the world could he be so certain that Oswald was the assassin and that he had no confederates? Why would he want to shut down the investigation so soon? Does that sound like a normal federal official who is confronted with the assassination of a president?

The answer to this riddle lies in the brilliantly cunning scheme of the U.S. national-security establishment to ensure that the investigation into Kennedy's assassination would be shut down immediately and, therefore, not lead to the U.S. national-security establishment.

The assassination itself had all the earmarks of a classic military ambush, one in which shooters were firing from both the front and back of the president. It is a virtual certainty that responsibility for the ambush lay with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had been waging a vicious war against Kennedy practically since the time he assumed office. (See FFF's book JFK's War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.)

While the JCS were experts at preparing military-style ambushes, they lacked the intellectual capability of devising the overall plot and cover-up, given its high level of cunning and sophistication. That responsibility undoubtedly lay with the CIA, whose top officials were brilliant graduates of Ivy League Schools. Moreover, practically from its inception the CIA was specializing in the art of state-sponsored assassinations and in how to conceal the CIA's role in them.

To ensure that the role of the Pentagon and the CIA in the Kennedy assassination would be kept secret, they had to figure out a way to shut down the investigation from the start. Their plan worked brilliantly. While the normal thing would have been all out investigations into the murder, in this particular murder the state of Texas and U.S. officials did the exact opposite. They settled for simply pinning the crime on Oswald, the purported lone nut communist ex-U.S. Marine.

Here is how they pulled it off.

As the years have passed, it has become increasingly clear that Oswald was a government operative, most likely for military intelligence or maybe the CIA and the FBI as well. His job was to portray himself as a communist, which would enable him to infiltrate not only domestic communist and socialist organizations but also communist countries, such as Cuba and the Soviet Union.

After all, how many communist Marines have you ever heard of? The Marines would be a good place to recruit people for intelligence roles. Oswald learned fluent Russian while in the military. How does an enlisted man do that, without the assistance of the military's language schools? When he returned from the Soviet Union after supposedly trying to defect and after promising that he was going to give up secret information he had acquired in the military, no federal grand jury or congressional investigation was launched into his conduct, even though this was the height of the Cold War.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

Thus, Oswald would make the perfect patsy. He could be stationed wherever his superiors instructed. And he would have all the earmarks of a communist, which would immediately prejudice Americans at the height of the Cold War.

But simply framing Oswald wouldn't have been enough to shut down the investigation. An aggressive investigation would undoubtedly be able to pierce through the pat nature of the frame-up. They needed something more.

If you're going to frame someone who is supposedly firing from the rear, then doesn't it make sense that you would have shots being fired only from the rear? Why would they frame a guy who is supposedly firing from the rear by having shots fired from the front?

That's where the sheer brilliance of this particular regime-change operation came into play. The plan was much more cunning than even the successful regime-change operations and assassinations that took place prior to the one against Kennedy -- i.e., Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Cuba from 1959-1963, and the Congo in 1961.

There is now virtually no doubt that Kennedy was hit by two shots fired from the front. Immediately after Kennedy was declared dead, the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital described the neck wound as a wound of entry. They also said that Kennedy had a massive, orange-sized wound in the back of his head. Nurses at Parkland said the same things. Two FBI agents said they saw the big exit-sized wound. Secret Service agent Clint Hill saw it. Navy photography expert Saundra Spencer told the ARRB in the 1990s that she developed the JFK autopsy photos on a top-secret basis on the weekend of the assassination and that they depicted a big exit-sized wound in the back of JFK's head. A bone fragment from the back of the president's head was found in Dealey Plaza after the assassination. That is just part of the overwhelming evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the shot that hit Kennedy in the head came from the front.

Okay, if you've got a shooter firing from the back and he's a communist, and if you have other shooters firing from the front, then they have to be working together. So, who would the shooters be who were firing from the front? The logical inference is that they had to be communist cohorts of Oswald.

That's what Oswald's supposed visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico just before the assassination were all about -- making it look like Oswald was acting in concert with the Soviet and Cuban communists to kill Kennedy.

If the assassination was part of the Soviet Union's supposed quest to conquer the world, retaliation would mean World War III, which almost surely would have meant nuclear war, which was the biggest fear among the American people in 1963.

But why not retaliate in some way? Would U.S. officials at the height of the Cold War hesitate to retaliate for the communist killing of a U.S. president, simply because they were scared of nuclear war? Not a chance! In fact, throughout Kennedy's term in office the Pentagon and the CIA were champing at the bit to attack Cuba and go to war with the Soviet Union.

But here's the catch: How do you take action that is going to destroy the world when it was your side that started the assassination game in the first place? Remember: It was the CIA that started the assassination game by partnering with the Mafia to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Thus, Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, and the JCS had the perfect excuse to shut down the investigation and pin the crime only on Oswald: If they instead retaliated, it would be all-out nuclear war based on an assassination game that the U.S. had started.

In fact, when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade alleged from the start that Oswald was part of a communist conspiracy, Johnson told him to shut it down for fear that Wade might inadvertently start World War III.

Moreover, when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren initially declined Johnson's invitation to serve on what ultimately became the Warren Commission, Johnson appealed to his sense of patriotism by alluding to the importance of avoiding a nuclear war. Johnson used the same argument on Senator Richard Russell Jr.

From the start, the Warren Commission proceedings were shrouded in "national-security" state secrecy, including a top-secret meeting of the commissioners to discuss information they had received that Oswald was an intelligence agent. When Warren was asked if the American people would be able to see all the evidence, Warren responded yes, but not in your lifetime.

Does that make any sense? If the assassination was, in fact, committed by some lone nut, then what would "national security" and state secrecy have to do with it?

That's undoubtedly how they induced the three military pathologists to conduct a fraudulent autopsy -- by telling them that they had to hide the fact that shots had been fired from the front in order to ensure that there was no all-out nuclear war. That's how we ended up with a fraudulent autopsy. (See my books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 .)

Thus, the plan entailed operating at two levels: One level involved what some call the World War III cover story. It entailed shutting down the investigation, as well as a fraudulent autopsy, to prevent nuclear war. The other level involved showing the American people that their president had been killed by only one person, a supposed lone nut communist former Marine.

Obviously, secrecy and obedience to orders were essential for the plan to succeed. That was why the autopsy was taken out of the hands of civilian officials and given to the military. With the military, people could be ordered to participate in the fraudulent autopsy and could be forced to keep everything they did and witnessed secret.

That's why Navy photography expert Saundra Spencer kept her secret for some 30 years. She had been told that her development of the JFK autopsy photos was a classified operation. Military people follow orders and keep classified information secret. Imagine if Spencer had told her story suggesting a fraudulent autopsy in the week following the assassination.

Gradually, as the years have passed, the incriminating puzzle has come together. The big avalanche of secret information came out in the 1990s as part of the work done by the Assassination Records Review Board.

Of course, there are still missing pieces to the puzzle, many of which are undoubtedly among the records that the CIA and national-security establishment are still keeping secret. But enough circumstantial evidence has come to light to enable people to see the contours of one of the most cunning and successful assassination plots in history.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

[Nov 25, 2020] A military fiasco of the United States might be needed in order to bring "cruise missile liberals" to understand the need of of abandoning Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine

Nov 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

One Too Many , Nov 25 2020 6:24 utc | 93

This is nothing new, the war machine keeps going and going. I actually found an individual that has the same outlook on stopping the behavior of the United States as I do. International lawyer Christopher Black in this interview had the following to say.

A Biden Administration Will Be Dominated by More U.S. Aggression

Question: What in your view needs to change in order to make U.S. foreign conduct abide by international law and therefore enhance the prospects for world peace?

Christopher Black: It will require a revolution in the United States to do that, an overthrow of the economic powers that control the machinery of the state, but there is no prospect of that happening. There is really no effective opposition to these policies in the U.S. The peace movement is weak and fragmented, dominated by the "cruise missile liberals". The voices of reason have no power, no real influence among the masses of the people which are dominated by a sophisticated propaganda machine known as the "media". Censorship is increasing and the few critical voices that exist are being silenced.

It will take, in my view, a military defeat of the United States in order to bring about the conditions necessary for the required changes. And, perhaps that will happen, as China has stated time and again, that if Washington decides to take direct control of their island of Taiwan and the Americans interfere or if they are attacked in the South China Sea, they will defeat the U.S. But such a war would have world consequences and would cause realignments of power not only in the USA, if we all survive it.


Line Islands , Nov 25 2020 11:05 utc | 103

Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more shadowy neo-conservative forces in retreat and determined to bring democracy building home after their colonial expeditions extinguished it at home, hastening the rise of America's own Saddam in Trump. Biden's own instincts may be decisive, however, and he was against war in Libya while also in favor of splitting Iraq. The dementia rumors are nonsense; Biden is a canny and often mendacious operator, and while I think Trump is a fascist and quite possibly a Russian mafia sub-boss, Biden may well be the restoration of more homegrown, American mafia rule. An argument that Giuliani has made in so many words, standing as he does on the Russian side and yelling into the shifting parapolitical winds.

William Gruff , Nov 25 2020 11:59 utc | 104

Line Islands @102

It's not really that complicated for China. They have no interest in or need to strike the American mainland. That would only be necessary if they were seeking global hegemony like the US, which they are not. Their strategic nuclear capabilities are strictly deterrence. All China has to do is survive the coming conflict arising from the Thucydides Trap that the US and China are caught in with minimal damage to their industrial capacity, infrastructure, and population.

That I specified "survive" and not "win" is not a mistake. The default outcome if nothing is done is that China ascends to uncontested sole global economic superpower status. That is not necessarily their intention but rather the natural outcome of China continuing the development of their domestic human capital and quality of life for 1.4 billion people. China doesn't have to take the fight to the US to end up on top, and the US has no choice but to somehow turn back the economic clock in China to keep its position as global imperial hegemon. Color revolution attempts, trade war, and bioweapon attacks have all failed the empire miserably, so all the US has left is to go kinetic.

The "US aircraft carrier force projection model" is effectively nullified by China, but those assets are still protected by America's delusional reality exclusion zone: "Destroying our carriers is unthinkable! No one would ever dare do that!" . That defense will prove inadequate against China's variety of "carrier killer" missiles.

As for America's stealth aircraft, China's defenses will likely be a surprise to many in the American empire. Furthermore, America's only stealth aircraft with sufficient range to reach China's mainland on anything other than a one way suicide mission would be the B-2 bomber, of which America only has 21. Those 21 will not last long in a kinetic conflict. Quite a few will likely simply be destroyed on the runway in Diego Garcia while the survivors will get to find out how well China's nifty new quantum radar works. The F-22 and F-35 would require refueling to get from carrier stand-off distance to the mainland and refueling again to get back, with America's aerial tankers needing to loiter within range of China's air defenses... not a good battle plan for the empire. Those stealth aircraft will not shift the advantage in the empire's favor, and attrition will be much higher than expected among them.

It must be repeated that China doesn't need to destroy the United States. They are not playing the board game "Risk" after all. China just needs to defeat the American empire's military force projection capabilities in their own neighborhood, and China already has that capacity right now. Every day that elapses shifts the advantage further into China's favor, so the empire needs to act while they still have the ability to do so. Trump's unwillingness to do more than bark loudly and his resistance to going kinetic is why the imperial elites had to fraud the elections so openly to get a more compliant figurehead into office ASAP. That the empire couldn't wait another four years means that we will see "interesting times" (yeah, even more interesting than the preceding twelve months!) real soon now.

Bemildred , Nov 25 2020 13:29 utc | 111

"A cornered dog will bite, even if it is obvious that it cannot win."

So will I, so what?

"It was never China's nor Iran's intention to "corner" the empire. That is simply the situation that America finds itself in now that its economy is in "late capitalism" decline. It is really not even anyone's fault, not even Trump or Reagan or any of the other usual suspects."

I agree, but again, so what? I'm not concerned with who is morally correct, I'm mainly concerned with whether there is going to be a big war and what happens if there is, that's not a moral question. I've been waiting around 40 years to watch our collapse, and I still think there is enough that is/was good here to be worth hoping for a soft landing. That's probably better for the rest of the planet too, but it's arguable.

Neither Iran of China is cornered, they are well-prepared, well-supported by "partners", and on their home turf. WE are not ready. We are vunerable. But we are not cornered either, nobody is going to come over here and interfere while we fight among ourselves.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 13:10 utc | 109

oldhippie , Nov 25 2020 13:34 utc | 112

What scares me about Blinken and Sullivan is the career trajectory. Both had completely unearned and unreasonable success every step of their lives. There is never any explanation for this manner of success but family connections. Neither has done anything of note other than to occupy positions of power.

Sullivan is all of 43 years old, has been a mover and shaker since his twenties. Any who have never read Halberstam's Best and Brightest might look at that now. We are in for a shit show. Biden is not going to do anything but take his meds and take a lot of naps. Already he is not to be seen. The crew named so far will steamroller Kamala, she is no more than a figurehead.

Likely she won't even stay in the room when it gets serious. Best possible outcome is that kids who have never done anything but suck up won't know what to do when they are left in charge with no adult supervision. Or there will be shadowy figures in background who steady the rudder.

More likely is war.

William Gruff , Nov 25 2020 13:45 utc | 114

Bemildred @111

Yes, it is not a moral question, it is an economic one. Wars have never been about morality.

That said, China has for a number of years now been preparing for a minimally damaging escape from the Thucydides Trap, and by "minimally damaging" I mean for the US as well. As I said above the Chinese are not at all interested in hurting the US.

The plan is to "spring" the Thucydides Trap in the South China Sea and hopefully confine most of the damage to that area. If successful then the empire gets its soft landing (albeit with significant amounts of military materiel and personnel sacrificed) and humanity moves beyond the Trap.

I have my fingers crossed that the plan works.

Piotr Berman , Nov 25 2020 14:31 utc | 116

@ PB 75
visible costs of vassaldom . . costs of American presence....decreasing the national security. . .participating in sanctions
Yes, plus a primary reason . . .Cost of buying US military junk like F-35. Foreign military sales is a mainstay of the US economy.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 3:43 utc | 83

When you add the numbers, "military junk" has notable prestige -- with matching prices, but the total loot of American companies is probably many times larger. For example, Trump waged a series of trade wars to perpetuate negligible taxation of "technology giants" like Google or Amazon. "Intellectual property" was a stumbling block in the trade war with China, with dire consequences for soy growing farmers in USA (and a boon to their colleagues in South America). Then there is pharma. It seems that the really big companies are comfortable being in relative shadow behind arms makers, and discourse on security threats and needs --because Russian use trolls to interfere with elections, we (all countries that cherish what is good and precious) need new generations of nukes, planes, ships and toilet seats. However illogical, it is more noble sounding than preventing the likes of Apple from more than nominal taxation.

[Nov 25, 2020] Bidens's "Cruise missile liberals" will bring "democracy builking" back to the homeland. That should scare most of US people, if we judge by thier results in Ukrain, Syria and Libya

Highly recommended!
Nov 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Line Islands , Nov 25 2020 11:05 utc | 103

Vicky left fake democracy promotion was always about expanding and sustaining controlled from Washinton global neoliberal empire. It is a part and parcel of Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine implementation. So it will lean to further drop of the standard of living on the majority of US people.

Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more shadowy neo-conservative forces are in retreat and determined to bring democracy building home after their colonial expeditions extinguished it

[Nov 25, 2020] America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth addict needs his next hit

Notable quotes:
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
Nov 25, 2020 | caitlinjohnstone.com

USA-MA BIN LADEN / NOVEMBER 25, 2020

America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth addict needs his next hit.

For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and mobilizing ideology. For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and mobilizing ideology.

Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.

[Nov 25, 2020] Biden's foxes guard the henhouse

You can't find better smarter neocons to pursue the Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine to the total decimation of the standard of living of ordinary Americans ;-)
Nov 25, 2020 | thegrayzone.com

Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.

Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what it called "full spectrum dominance."

Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."

... During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction"

As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."

... In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to "increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."

[Nov 25, 2020] Biden is to the extreme right of Trump on the issue of the US's endless neocolonial wars. And Biden is already laying the groundwork for the deconstruction of Social Security, work he began as VP to Obama. That makes Biden to the extreme right of Trump on foreign domestic issues...all thanks to the "blue no matter who" crowd.

So what Biden is trying to achieve is to stem the collapse of neoliberalism and with it the global US-controlled neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... IMO, all three of the turn-of-the-century free-market-neolibral model, the hypothetical Trump(ish) nationalist model, and the revised technocratic-neoliberal schemes, are fatally flawed. Despite the political rhetoric of US Republicans, there's no real prospect of an even mildly leftist (i.e. inclusive, egalitarian, and internationalist) alternative anytime soon in the US. I suspect the same is true in most neoliberal countries. ..."
Nov 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
S Brennan , Nov 24 2020 17:14 utc | 10

The man is a war mongering psycho:

Blinken surprised some in the Situation Room by breaking with Biden to support military action in Libya, administration officials said, and he advocated for American action in Syria after Obama's reelection. These sources said that Blinken was less enthusiastic than Biden about Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a strike in Syria, but is now -- perhaps out of necessity -- onboard and a backer of diplomatic negotiations with Russia. While less of an ideologue than Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (a job for which he was considered), he not surprisingly shares her belief that global powers such as the United States have a "responsibility to protect" against atrocities.

He has since shown no remorse about those foreign policy failures:

Blinken maintains that the failure of U.S. policy in Syria was that our government did not employ enough force. He stands by the false argument that Biden's vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was a "vote for tough diplomacy." He was reportedly in favor of the Libyan intervention, which Biden opposed, and he was initially a defender and advocate for U.S. support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. In short, Blinken has agreed with some of the biggest foreign policy mistakes that Biden and Obama made, and he has tended to be more of an interventionist than both of them.

Jake Sullivan will become National Security Advisor. He is a Hillary Clinton figure :

If you can't quite place Jake Sullivan, he's was a long-serving aide to Hillary Clinton, starting with her 2008 race against Barack Obama, then serving as her deputy chief of staff and director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning when Clinton was Obama's secretary of state. (...) In 2016, during her failed presidential campaign, Sullivan once again teamed up with Clinton, and he was widely expected to have been named to serve as her national security adviser or even secretary of state had she won.

Since 2016, and since the creation of NSA, Sullivan has emerged as a kind of foreign policy scold, gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- criticizing those who reflexively oppose American intervention abroad and who disparage the idea of American "exceptionalism." Indeed, in an article in the January-February issue of The Atlantic, "What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About America," Sullivan explicitly says that he's intent on "rescuing the idea of American exceptionalism" and presents the "case for a new American exceptionalism".

Sullivan send classified documents to Hillary Clinton's private email server. He wrote to her that Al Qaida is "on our side in Syria." He also hyped fake Trump-Russia collusion allegations.

It is yet unknown who will become Secretary of Defense. Michèle Flournoy is the most named option but there is some opposition to her nomination :

[B]ackers of Michèle Flournoy, his likely pick for defense secretary, are trying to head off a last-minute push by some left-leaning Democrats trying to derail her selection, with many progressives seeing her nomination as a continuation of what critics refer to as America's "forever wars."

I expect that the progressive will lose the fight and that either Flournoy or some other hawkish figure will get that weapon lobbyist position.

Progressives also lost on the Treasury position. Biden's nomination for that is Janet Yellen who is known to be an inflation hawk. She is unlikely to support large spending on progressive priorities.

As usual with a Democratic election win the people who brought the decisive votes and engagement, those who argue for more socialist and peaceful policies, will be cut off from the levers of power.

In three years they will again be called upon to fall for another bait and switch.

As I said over at Ian Welsh's blog

"this is brought on by the "blue no matter who crowd" who can't understand that guaranteeing their vote at the outset without extorting any firm quid pro quo a priori guarantees that [working people] can be safely ignored. And yet, almost everybody here [reminder, posted at Ian's] argued for just that and will the next time and the next.

Why will something like that happen

If the polls are to be believed, Biden is the most popular Democrat of all time and by a large margin. If polls are to be believed, the DNC denying the Sanders wing was the smartest thing the DNC has ever done. If polls are to be believed, Biden strode through battle unscathed while lessor Democrats were squashed. The DNC was right, the Sanders people are fools, if polls are to be believed. The immense Biden vote proves once and for all, that any who diverge from DNC dictata should be ignored for all time.

That was the message sent in 2020"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Biden is to the extreme right of Trump on the issue of the US's endless neocolonial wars. And Biden is already laying the groundwork for the deconstruction of Social Security, work he began as VP to Obama. That makes Biden to the extreme right of Trump on foreign & domestic issues...all thanks to the "blue no matter who" crowd. Meanwhile, the election "make 'em scream" ploy Pelosi employed will toss millions off federal extensions of unemployment midnight 31 Dec 2020 until congress reconvenes.

And for all those who claimed Trump to be evil incarnate, worse than Hitler...in a few weeks, facts will show those people to be clownish frauds.


ptb , Nov 24 2020 18:20 utc | 25

yep. sad. Yellen for Treasury is interesting, and a crucial position to watch. Mnuchin basically ran the Trump administration's economic policy, as far as there was one.

One of the watchwords of the coming era is the "Great Reset", i.e. a limited shift in the direction of a technocratic planned economy. In a way, this began after 2008 when the FED intervened in stock and bond markets to such a degree that its interventions became the dominant driving force. With that, "market forces" couldn't plausibly remain a reflection of free competition as the theory postulated. The fact that this measure had to be taken (i.e. markets had to be overtly "fixed"), is an implicit admission that the thesis of the free-market purists, the dream of the Reagan-Clinton era, has been falsified.

The proposed solution, at least the version coming from the high business class (and exaggerated further still by right-wing critics of Great Reset) seems like a recipe to worsen the problem of "regulatory capture" above all else. I.e. the agents and beneficiaries of the neoliberal era making an effort to adapt, without giving up the benefits of the prior economic regime. Likelyhood of fixing inequalities is nil. The emphasis is on reinforcing the stability of the system, holding on to power, perhaps competing with threatening alternatives from the "outside", although that would seem to be a second priority.

Trump did put up a facade of a nationalist alternative, which had the effect of acknowledging the inequalities and failures of the neoliberal system, but offering an equally harmful solution. Besides that, if you look at who was making economic policy in the past 4 years (Treasury Dept), the nationalist facade was false, as far as domestic economic matters were concerned.

IMO, all three of the turn-of-the-century free-market-neolibral model, the hypothetical Trump(ish) nationalist model, and the revised technocratic-neoliberal schemes, are fatally flawed. Despite the political rhetoric of US Republicans, there's no real prospect of an even mildly leftist (i.e. inclusive, egalitarian, and internationalist) alternative anytime soon in the US. I suspect the same is true in most neoliberal countries.

So Biden comes into this moment, with a clear mandate -- from the sponsors -- to reinforce the status quo. He brings Yellen into this moment in a the crucial position.

Lex , Nov 24 2020 19:08 utc | 38

Of course Biden's foreign policy team and the policy itself will be shit. As it was for the trump admin, the Obama admin, the Bush II admin, the Clinton admin, the Bush I admin, the fucking Reagan admin, then there's carter and Nixon. Look, I can take this back all the way to Washington. Biden's not special. It's always been an empire; trump did nothing to dismantle it; but now it's a failing empire.

And don't try the "Trump's instincts were dashed by the deep state". Dude constantly bragged about how much he spent on the DoD. If he could find a way to personally profit from the empire he would have.

karlof1 , Nov 24 2020 22:25 utc | 62

Here's an interview given by acclaimed Canadian International Law lawyer Christopher Black who is rather pessimistic given the team members and its chief. While I disagree on a few minor points, I agree with his overall assessment:

"The Americans proclaim they are all for competition but we know that means only when it puts them in the superior position; and to maintain their position they are willing to threaten and attack the world if necessary; and there are a myriad of domestic problems in the USA which they have no way out of, since the two ruling parties have no solutions to offer, except war."

I would disagree with war being a solution; rather, it exacerbates many already existing problems. However, war would make revolution more likely. Since it's highly unlikely the Empire could make the "Moderate Rebel" ploy work again, to escalate in Syraq as Biden's nominee wants would require a direct assault by Imperial Stormtroopers, and that would be a huge domestic error during the continuing pandemic.

oldhippie , Nov 24 2020 23:32 utc | 65

Mark2 @ 63

Your buddy was born in Havana and grew up in Miami's Cuban hole. And he's Jewish. I'll eat my hat if the family was not personal friends/business partners with Meyer Lansky and Myer Schine. Wonderful, Homeland Security has been given to the Mafia.

Expect more of same from Biden.

vk , Nov 24 2020 23:42 utc | 67

It reminds me very much Khrushchev's government. He went in guns blazing, accusing Stalin as outdated and promising a whole new paradigm (economic and geopolitical). He failed miserably in both. He was toppled in 1964 and substituted by a figure of the "establishment", Leonid Brezhnev, who basically restored what existed during Stalin and effectively gave up making the USSR better. The first proletarian State would disintegrate soon.

Not saying Yellen-Biden will be the American Brezhnev - they are much lesser historical figures than he was - but pay attention to the pattern.

Trisha , Nov 25 2020 0:00 utc | 68

Should come as no surprise that where it matters, Biden is Trump wearing a smiley face, just like Pelosi is Trump in a wig. Actually, considering actual body count and misery inflicted on vast populations, Biden's record is WORSE than Trump.

[Nov 25, 2020] The relationship with Russia, under Trump, is fully under control of Kaganate of Nuland

Nov 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Nov 25 2020 0:59 utc | 75

Annoying Russians with a destroyer 10 miles or so from Vladivostok under good old Trump. Apparently, after a series of moves that replaced some top figures in Pentagon. The relationship with Russia, under Trump, is fully under control of Kaganate of Nulandia, or whatever we see on the top of that iceberg -- and try to make a search what it would take to change the course of an iceberg from Antarctics (people were investigating it as a way of bringing fresh water to Arabian peninsula where money is plentiful but water is scarce).

There are two important aspects there. Local trade is more profitable than distant trade when consider in totality, i.e. including the products that you would never make profit after crossing oceans. Second aspect is that Far East is a cultural zone like Europe -- lots of animosities collected over centuries, but even more commonalities in culture. As USA imposes various types of tribute on allies/vassals, centripetal forces in various continents should increase. Among visible costs of vassaldom:

1. paying costs of American presence
2. annoying China beyond the national needs, thus decreasing the national security
3. participating in sanctions imposed by USA, directly and indirectly (through resulting conflicts) reducing profits in economies that are struggling

[Nov 24, 2020] 'Manipulative BULLS--T'- Glenn Greenwald defends calling NBC a CIA mouthpiece, mocks accusation of 'endangering journalists'

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Greenwald earlier this week said NBC "has always existed to disseminate US government, CIA and corporate propaganda." ..."
"... NBC also helped the CIA sell the Iraq War on its Meet the Press program, and sister network MSNBC was "ground zero for mindless CIA stenography of the most unhinged Russiagate conspiracy theories," he said. ..."
"... The C.I.A. owns anyone of any significance in the media. -William Colby. Former Director of the CIA. In 1974, the Rockefeller Commission was established to investigate shennanigans carried out by the Agency. President Ford fired William Colby and replaced him with George Herbert Walker Bush. Why? Because Gerald Ford thought that Colby was being too honest with the Commission about CIA wrong doings. ..."
"... Interestingly, Gerald Ford was often referred to as "The CIA's Best Friend in The Senate", which would explain his old appointment to the Warren Commission. It was Ford who ordered JFK's bullet wound in the back to be raised six inches up to his neck, thus allowing Arlen Specter to float his "Magic bullet Theory" ..."
"... As is not generally known, Bush I was lifetime CIA and became I believe the first CIA President. There is a little known picture of a young Bush standing outside the Texas Book Depository on the day of the assassination. ..."
"... The CIA controls the media in subtle ways. Blacklists for instance. I have experience after one of my buddies fell for the spiel of an agent provocateur. Never trust anyone, always assume they could be CIA and assess what damage they can do to you (and your associates) before you interact with them. Misleading them would be best. ..."
"... As shocking as it may sound, Glenn is stating the obvious. Even AFP and Reuters are CIA mouthpieces. Look up Operation Mockingbird. Look up "propaganda multiplier" by the Swiss policy research. ..."
"... Interesting that nobody even tried to deny it, they just come up with the same line they used to attack Wikileaks for telling the truth: exposing this might put out operatives at risk. ..."
"... Perilous Environments because the CIA is probably manipulating another of its regimes change, to very undemocratically put someone they control into office. Surely you remember Poroshenko? ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird was a secret CIA effort to influence and control the American media. The first report of the program came in 1979 in the biography of Katharine Graham, the owner of the Washington Post, written by Deborah Davis. Davis wrote that the program was established by Frank Wisner, the director of the Office of Policy Coordination, a covert operations unit created under the National Security Council. ..."
"... Reporters who work for the CIA are not spies, because the CIA is a lying agency, not a spying agency. If a terrorist accuses you of being a CIA agent, you can honestly reply that the CIA is the terrorist's friend. ..."
"... The CIA wants the world to believe that China, Russia and Iran are the leading state sponsors of terrorism, and that those seeking the overthrow of Syria's Bashar al-Assad are freedom fighters, not terrorists... ..."
Nov 22, 2020 | www.rt.com

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald torched accusations that he endangered reporters by saying NBC News spouts CIA propaganda, saying he only spoke of a well-known fact, and the effort to shame him was "manipulative bulls**t."

"Profoundly sorry for endangering the lives of NBC executives and TV personalities by spilling the extremely well-kept secret of their close working relationship with the CIA," Greenwald tweeted sarcastically on Saturday. His message showed a picture of a headline about NBC's 2018 hiring of ex-CIA chief John Brennan as an NBC and MSNBC contributor.

Greenwald's retort came in reply to reporter Sulome Anderson, who accused him of endangering journalists who work in places where any CIA affiliation is "life-threatening." Greenwald earlier this week said NBC "has always existed to disseminate US government, CIA and corporate propaganda."

"This crosses a line," Anderson said. "Like some of his proteges, Glenn is endangering journalists working in perilous environments by telling his massive following that they are mouthpieces for US intelligence."

Greenwald said on Saturday that NBC has a "long-standing role" in spouting CIA propaganda, as evidenced by its hiring of Ken Dilanian, who was accused of sharing stories with the CIA press office prior to publication while working as a Los Angeles Times reporter. NBC also helped the CIA sell the Iraq War on its Meet the Press program, and sister network MSNBC was "ground zero for mindless CIA stenography of the most unhinged Russiagate conspiracy theories," he said.

"If you don't want to be known as a CIA outpost, then don't be one," Greenwald tweeted. He added that NBC hired "John Brennan, Ken Dilanian and every other operative puked up by the security state. People already know."

Anderson has written at least two opinion pieces on Lebanon for NBC in recent months. She has been critical of Hezbollah, designated a terrorist group by the US government, but also has interviewed some of its fighters.

Anderson, who said she is "morally opposed" to journalists working as intelligence agents, may have good reason for her sensitivity about alleged CIA ties. Her parents were both journalists who covered Lebanon's 15-year civil war, and she said her father was kidnapped by terrorists.

"They tortured him again and again for years, calling him CIA," she said Saturday on Twitter. "'I am not a spy,' he would scream. 'I am a reporter.' It never stopped them."

Anderson acknowledged journalists being used as intelligence-agency assets, but said such cases are rare. "Time and again, American hostages – journalists and otherwise – have been falsely called spies, tortured and killed," she said. "I have been in many situations where I've had to convince the very dangerous men I am with that I am not a spy. My saving grace has always been that I am not."

Greenwald came to international fame by breaking the Edward Snowden NSA whistleblower story in 2013. He later co-founded the Intercept but quit the outlet last month after saying editors there suppressed his coverage of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.


fezzie035fezzm 19 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 11:52 PM

The C.I.A. owns anyone of any significance in the media. -William Colby. Former Director of the CIA. In 1974, the Rockefeller Commission was established to investigate shennanigans carried out by the Agency. President Ford fired William Colby and replaced him with George Herbert Walker Bush. Why? Because Gerald Ford thought that Colby was being too honest with the Commission about CIA wrong doings.

Bush, as the new Director, stonewalled the hearings and put the lid on any information coming out, which would explain why CIA Headquarters in Langley was named after Bush. Colby is no longer among the living. Let's just say that he didn't die from "natural causes".

Interestingly, Gerald Ford was often referred to as "The CIA's Best Friend in The Senate", which would explain his old appointment to the Warren Commission. It was Ford who ordered JFK's bullet wound in the back to be raised six inches up to his neck, thus allowing Arlen Specter to float his "Magic bullet Theory"

JOHNCHUCKMAN fezzie035fezzm 1 hour ago 22 Nov, 2020 05:48 PM
Yes, Colby was an unusually frank man at times. He also told us about the ghastly Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, a CIA run assassination scheme of village leaders and prominent men. They killed 30 or 40 thousand people by sending in belly-crawling special forces guys to enter villages at night and cut throats.

As is not generally known, Bush I was lifetime CIA and became I believe the first CIA President. There is a little known picture of a young Bush standing outside the Texas Book Depository on the day of the assassination. You'll find it on my site Chuckman's Words in Comments on Wordpress. Its title to search is: A REMARKABLE DULL LITTLE PHOTOGRAPH OF GEORGE H W BUSH WITH EXPLOSIVE SUGGESTIONS. Sorry, but RT doesn't like links.

Of course, Colby himself may have been assassinated. He had a very odd boating accident.

Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 20 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 11:14 PM
The CIA controls the media in subtle ways. Blacklists for instance. I have experience after one of my buddies fell for the spiel of an agent provocateur. Never trust anyone, always assume they could be CIA and assess what damage they can do to you (and your associates) before you interact with them. Misleading them would be best.
Enorm 22 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:01 PM
NBC operatives don't have an opinion. They follow da money,. I feel sorry for folks glued to propaganda TV.
Oregon Observer Enorm 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:41 PM
WikiLeaks and other investigative outfits have looked at the conglomerates over the years and over half of them are CIA "assets"...
Chris Cottrell 22 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 08:25 PM
Are they spies? Probably not. Are they tools of the CIA even if unwittingly, yes.
Oregon Observer Chris Cottrell 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:43 PM
Most ARE spies in every sense of the term. They look for specific information that they pass onto their handler(s). It bears noting that the FBI and the 10,000 or so outfits that contract with them and NSA and DHS and the pentagon and the various state Fusion programs are as bad or worse and every stinking one if those outfits recruits reporters.
fakiho2 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:28 PM
As shocking as it may sound, Glenn is stating the obvious. Even AFP and Reuters are CIA mouthpieces. Look up Operation Mockingbird. Look up "propaganda multiplier" by the Swiss policy research.
shadow1369 fakiho2 6 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:30 PM
Interesting that nobody even tried to deny it, they just come up with the same line they used to attack Wikileaks for telling the truth: exposing this might put out operatives at risk. My response to that is good, time to have these roaches taken out.
Edward698 18 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 01:43 AM
You can bet on Glenn to tell you the truth unlike the main stream media which fed us with lots of non sense on Syria. Read his interview with "Democracy now": .... Glenn Greenwald on "Submissive" Media's Drumbeat for War and "Despicable" Anti-Muslim Scapegoating By Democracy Now! ....

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, that clip is unbelievable. It is literally one of the three most important military officials of the entire war on terror, General Flynn, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He's saying that the U.S. government knew that by creating a vacuum in Syria and then flooding that region with arms and money, that it was likely to result in the establishment of a caliphate by Islamic extremists in eastern Syria -- which is, of course, exactly what happened.

They knew that that was going to happen, and they proceeded to do it anyway. So when the U.S. government starts trying to point the finger at other people for helping ISIS, they really need to have a mirror put in front of them, because, by their own documents, as that extraordinary clip demonstrates, they bear huge responsibility for that happening, to say nothing of the fact that, as I said, their closest allies in the region actually fund it.

Debra Edward698 14 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 05:37 AM
The US was not only counting on their ISIS creation to destabilize Syria in the hope of an Assad exit but also to decimate the Hezbollah. I credit the Hezbollah for saving Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, but they suffered heavy, heavy losses. "So when the U.S. government starts trying to point the finger at other people for helping ISIS, they really need to have a mirror put in front of them, because, by their own documents, as that extraordinary clip demonstrates, they bear huge responsibility for that happening, to say nothing of the fact that, as I said, their closest allies in the region actually fund it."
frankfalseflag 19 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:08 AM
** "Glenn is endangering journalists working in perilous environments by telling. . ." ** . . Perilous Environments because the CIA is probably manipulating another of its regimes change, to very undemocratically put someone they control into office. Surely you remember Poroshenko? ...
pogohere 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 10:16 PM
Operation Mockingbird was a secret CIA effort to influence and control the American media. The first report of the program came in 1979 in the biography of Katharine Graham, the owner of the Washington Post, written by Deborah Davis. Davis wrote that the program was established by Frank Wisner, the director of the Office of Policy Coordination, a covert operations unit created under the National Security Council.

According to Davis, Wisner recruited Philip Graham of the Washington Post to head the project within the media industry. Davis wrote that, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

Davis also writes that Allen Dulles convinced Cord Meyer, who later became Mockingbird's "principal operative," to join the CIA in 1951.

The Taliban Won the War 7 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:28 PM
It is true and it is an undisputed fact that all Western governments use Journalists, aid workers and so called human relief organisations as cover for espionage, undercover and dark operations. Not just that, they also use exchange teachers and students, they use priests and pastors. They use anything and anyone that can hid
Isiah Steele 8 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 11:45 AM
The Motion Picture Industry of Hollywood, too are CIA! Propagates: war and constant US Military dominated narratives.
Sergio Weigel 16 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 03:31 AM
I'm pretty sure that most journalists don't know, or don't wanna know, the dirty open secret that editorial lines of most outlets are indeed determined or influenced by the CIA. The trouble is their working conditions. There are far more journalists than job openings, and they already earn badly. In order to keep the job, they just play ball, and as humans are, they make themselves believe that what they were doing was just right. Cognitive dissonance, and the result is outrage and defensive anger when someone points out their hypocrisy. That is also why they avoid to even read alternative media, they don't have their noses pointed to it. In a way, we can pity them. Then again, why become a journalist these days?
shadow1369 Sergio Weigel 7 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:43 PM
I used to think maybe 'journalists' were simply misled, but the narrative on too many stories, from 9/11 to Iraq, from Syria to the ukraine, from the Skripals to Navalny, was so ludicrous that a five year old could see through the lies. Nope, they know full well that they are lying, and do so regardless. A great example was when some bbc l!cksp!ttle was interviewing a general about events in Syria. Somehow they got the wrong guy, or he had not been properly briefed, because his responses were factual and balanced. After trying to challenge him, the interviewer finally said 'Don't you realise this is an informatioon war'.
Debra 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 03:11 PM
This is another warning for people: Over the last two years Facebook has been advertising for viewers to join Facebook groups. Many political groups on Facebook are set up by CIA and FBI agents. Facebook is full of agents, and that is why the ones in Michigan were caught in their attempted coup against the Michigan governor...
Quick Draw 22 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:46 PM
Just NBC?
imnotarobot22 16 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 03:05 AM
google 'Udo Ulfkotte' ex editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine - he'll tell you about it.
Richard Burden 2 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 05:07 PM
Reporters who work for the CIA are not spies, because the CIA is a lying agency, not a spying agency. If a terrorist accuses you of being a CIA agent, you can honestly reply that the CIA is the terrorist's friend.

The CIA wants the world to believe that China, Russia and Iran are the leading state sponsors of terrorism, and that those seeking the overthrow of Syria's Bashar al-Assad are freedom fighters, not terrorists...

[Nov 23, 2020] Administrations change but Full Spectrum Dominance Doctine and the desire to portect and emand global neoliberal empire controlled from Washinton is intact. It will eventually banrupt the country much like was the case with the British Empire

Highly recommended!
Neocons still dominate both the State Department and NSC. That's bad.
Nov 23, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Top Biden Advisors Flournoy & Blinken Promise More Secretive 'Permanent War' Policy - Zero Hedge

Authored by Dan Cohen via TheGrayZone.com,

Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.

He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation. While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American Empire Great Again .

Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power of our example."

Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush administration.

"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure," Biden has said.

Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .

Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton administration.

During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to government.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the president's National Security Advisor.

Biden's foxes guard the henhouse

Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.

Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what it called "full spectrum dominance."

Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY

This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines . Support the independent journalism initiative here .

As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's, Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic attack against the United States."

Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden, who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction."

As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."

With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the sidelines.

In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to "increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."

In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big banks.

Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a drawdown.

Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare, clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and corporate news media.

Architects of America's Hybrid wars

Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is beginning to lose momentum."

Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the commitment may change over time."

Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure short of a political settlement being in place."

That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a presence.

Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may change."

In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO regime-change war on Libya.

Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.

Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.

Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."

MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."

So did CNN.

As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."

All of this was based on a report from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.

Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.

Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."

Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the U.S. had waging for more than a decade.

Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars. We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also a more effective way."

Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."

Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is facing famine.

Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1141440589143126021&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Ftop-biden-advisors-flournoy-blinken-promise-more-secretive-permanent-war-policy&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."

While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria, Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the ground.

At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for economic pressure.

Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."

Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.

But Trump obliged.

The Third Offset

While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

The Third Offset strategy shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities, development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones, hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind. All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.

The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of this dangerous new escalation .

In June, Flournoy published a lengthy commentary laying out her strategy called " Sharpening the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration ."

She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their backyard."

While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.

At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border and threaten us militarily."

As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet, small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush stroke."

The end of forever wars?

So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.

In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power competition.

The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."

As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019, Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .

Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations. However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the devil.

In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.

His Venezuela policy appears little different from Trump's – sanctions and regime change.

In Central America, Biden has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses fleeing north to the United States.

Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."

naughty.boy , 14 hours ago

deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.

Distant_Star , 14 hours ago

Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger. They are too "important" to be at risk.

[Nov 23, 2020] JFK was assassinated 57 years ago today

Nov 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

librul , Nov 22 2020 17:47 utc | 19

JFK was assassinated 57 years ago today.

Wonder how the various generations, generally speaking, view that event and it's cause?

(perhaps)

Baby Boomers: I surmise we generally don't believe in the Lone Gunman Theory. Ironically, those Baby Boomers that count themselves
as Democrats now support Trump's enemy the CIA.

Gen X: "My history teacher said..."

Gen Y: "JFK?"

Gen Z: "Whatever"

gottlieb , Nov 22 2020 17:57 utc | 21

Today of course is the sad anniversary of the assassination of the 35th American President, JFK. Killed, history tells us, by a lone gunman, communist sympathizer, traitor, and failure who wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

Meanwhile, the CIA continues to run the world.

[Nov 21, 2020] How 'Western' Media Select Their Foreign Correspondents

Nov 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

How 'Western' Media Select Their Foreign Correspondents gottlieb , Nov 20 2020 19:21 utc | 1

Did you ever wonder why 'western' mainstream media get stories about Russia and other foreign countries so wrong?

It is simple. They hire the most brainwashed, biased and cynic writers they can get for the job. Those who are corrupt enough to tell any lie required to support the world view of their editors and media owners.

They are quite upfront about it.

Here is evidence in form of a New York Times job description for a foreign correspondent position in Moscow:

Russia Correspondent

Job Description

Vladimir Putin's Russia remains one of the biggest stories in the world.

It sends out hit squads armed with nerve agents against its enemies, most recently the opposition leader Aleksei Navalny. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony in the West to tarnish its democratic systems, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It has deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its influence. At home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president hides out in his villa.

If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news: We will have an opening for a new correspondent as Andy Higgins takes over as our next Eastern Europe Bureau Chief early next year.


bigger

To be allowed to write for the Times one must see the Russian Federation as a country that is ruled by just one man.

One must be a fervent believer in MI6 produced Novichok hogwash. One must also believe in Russiagate and in the multiple idiocies it produced even after all of them have been debunked.

One must know that vote counts in Russia are always wrong while U.S. vote counting is the most reliable ever. Russian private military contractors (which one must know to be evil men) are 'secretly deployed' to wherever the editors claim them to be. Russia's hospitals are of cause always much worse than ours.

Even when it is easy to check that Vladimir Putin (the most evil man ever) is at work in the Kremlin the job will require one to claim that he is hiding in a villa.

Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above nonsense. But the description is not for a position that requires one to weight and report the facts. It is for a job that requires one to lie. That the Times lists all the recent nonsense about Russia right at the top of the job description makes it clear that only people who support those past lies will be considered adequate to tell future lies about Russia.

No honest unbiased person will want such a job. But as it comes with social prestige, a good paycheck and a probably nice flat in Moscow the New York Times will surely find a number of people who are willing to sell their souls to take it.

Interestingly the job advertisement does not list Russian language capabilities as a requirement. It only says that 'Fluency in Russian is preferred'.

'Western' mainstream media are filled with such biased, cynic and self-censoring correspondents who have little if any knowledge of the country they are reporting from. It is therefore not astonishing that 'western' populations as well as their politicians have often no knowledge of what is really happening in the world.

Hilarious. Don't need no stinking Operation Mockingbird anymore. Just put out a want-ad and plenty of brainwashed folks will come flocking. Propaganda works.

powerandpeople , Nov 20 2020 19:29 utc | 2

Soomeone said:

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations."

In this case "everything else is propaganda."

The job title is really 'Anti-Russia Propagandist'.

Jen , Nov 20 2020 19:31 utc | 3
This is such an odd job description with very few specific requirements and none detailing how much experience or what level of knowledge or skill is required (in the form of X number of years worked in some area requiring Russian language skills or university qualifications obtained) that I almost wonder if this advertisement is for real.

One notices also that "Vladimir Putin's Russia" is presented as a story. Everything else that follows in the second paragraph of the advertisement is also a story. Indeed everything in the news media industry is a "story" as if instead of employing investigative reporters on the beat grimly searching for hard facts like old pulp fiction detectives, the media now only wants Hollywood script writers or graduates straight out of creative writing courses.

But then I suppose whoever gets the job at the NYT can hardly do worse than what the hack Luke Harding did as The Fraudian's Moscow correspondent nearly 15 years ago, so much so that the Russian govt must have suspected that he was more than just a bad paranoid plagiarist ... he must have been a spy as well, that it would initially refuse to renew his visa. One would like to see the job specifications for the position of The Fraudian's Moscow reporter that Harding held for a number of years.

JimmyG. , Nov 20 2020 19:32 utc | 4
Incredible. What the acronym 'SMH' (shake my head) was invented for.

It's no wonder I switched off CBC radio, our national broadcaster here in Canada. Their music programs were okay, but every hour they had a news update, and those were stomach-turning. Superficial, biased, Empire-friendly nonsense...

Don Bacon , Nov 20 2020 19:32 utc | 5

Norman Solomon wrote about this problem fifteen years ago in his book "War Made Easy, How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
. . .from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media critic, and author Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to probe and scrutinize the key "perception management" techniques that have played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in recent decades.

p.116

. . .The attitudes of reporters covering U.S. foreign policy officials are generally similar to the attitudes of those officials. "Most journalists who get plum foreign assignments already accept the assumptions of empire," according to longtime foreign correspondent Reese Erlick. He added, "I didn't meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who disagreed with the notion that the U.S. and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraq government by force. They disagreed only about timing, whether the action should be unilateral, and whether a long-term occupation is practical." After decades of freelancing for major U.S. news organizations, Erlich offered this blunt conclusion: "Money, prestige, career options, ideological predilections--combined with the down sides of filing stories unpopular with the government--all cast their influence on foreign correspondents. You don't win a Pulitzer prize for challenging the basic assumptions of empire."
uncle tungsten , Nov 20 2020 20:02 utc | 9

Thank you b.

Now here is a fine journalist they could simply contract for sane reporting on China . Plus excellent Russian analysis as well.

Good read with a link or two to consider.

Canadian Cents , Nov 20 2020 20:21 utc | 12

> social prestige, a good paycheck and a probably nice flat

The term that Paul Craig Roberts often uses, " presstitute ", comes to mind.

Echoing JimmyG. @4 and spudski @7, in Canada, our taxpayer-funded state news agency's flagship program "The National" gives us regular Two Minutes Hate pieces currently being churned out every two weeks or so by Moscow correspondent Chris Brown who fits this article's description to a T.

I've lost count of how many times he and CBC The National's editors have singled out Russia's handling of COVID-19 for criticism, when so many other countries have far worse per capita fatality numbers than Russia.

While decrying Russia's COVID-19 deaths, they, of course, never mention the fact that Canada has had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than Russia ...

Jpc , Nov 20 2020 21:00 utc | 15

It's absolutely pathetic.
5 years ago the truly great journalist Robert Fisk made the following observations during an interview with the journal.ie amongst others.
Back's up everything you have pointed out about the sheer disappearance of any impartial reportage from the NYT and printed media in general.

"Most newspapers that have lost circulation, particularly in the States, it's not because of the internet, it's because those newspapers were simply no good. When I go to San Francisco the coverage of the Middle East in its papers is frightened, cowardly, pathetic, there's no serious foreign coverage at all."

"Newspapers themselves are to blame for the deterioration in their readership. I read the New York Times when its free, period, it doesn't deserve to be paid for. It's not worth it.
It doesn't matter whether it's online or not. If a paper's not worth buying you'll read for free online regardless"

William Gruff , Nov 20 2020 21:03 utc | 17

"Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above nonsense."

Our host is much too charitable to the presstitutes. Those in the "Mockingbird" mass media eat their own effluent like a sort of group ouroboric scatophagia. To maintain their perverse form of "mental hygiene" they studiously avoid information sources outside of their own circular reprocessing of yesterday's delusions into fresh steaming piles for today's consumption. They have become so accustomed to feeding off their own delusions that if a hint of reality were to intrude into their looped intellectual food chain their minds would reject it like poison. They would likely exhibit physical symptoms, which doubtless would be attributed to evil Soviet mind rays from Havana.

Canadian Cents , Nov 20 2020 21:16 utc | 18

Quite scary how Western mainstream media are all marching in unison to the same beat.

Unfortunately it sounds like this creeping facism could get even worse:

Biden State Media Appointee Advocated Using Propaganda Against Americans

Stengel stated clearly that a "news cartel" of mainstream corporate media outlets had long dominated US society, but he bemoaned that those "cartels don't have hegemony like they used to."

Stengel made it clear that his mission is to counter the alternative perspectives given a voice by foreign media platforms that challenge the US-dominated media landscape.

"The bad actors use journalistic objectivity against us."

Wow ...

I clicked on the New York Times job link, and journalistic objectivity and integrity are nowhere to be found in the job descripton. But I did notice these lines that add to the ones that b brought to our attention:

We are looking for someone who will embrace the prospect of traversing 11 time zones to track a populace that is growing increasingly frustrated with an economy dragged down by corruption, cronyism and excessive reliance on natural resources. This posting offers the chance to chronicle the continuing reign of one of the world's most charismatic leaders, President Vladimir V. Putin.

Not to mention, Putin ushered in changes to the constitution, so he will likely stay in power for many years to come.

And, of course, we are on the cusp of a new, less Putin-friendly president in the US, which should only raise the temperature between Washington and Moscow.

Wow again ...

Don Bacon , Nov 20 2020 21:19 utc | 19

It's not Russia it's "Vladimir Putin's Russia," so that's one mandatory term checked off, i.e. personalizing the appointed enemy. But then we read "It sends out hit squads. . ." instead of the usual obligatory: 'The regime' . . . . .but the Times can't get everything right.

Paco , Nov 20 2020 21:21 utc | 20

A flat in Moscow!!! A soul could sold for it... but, there are job openings in Russia, here, a farmer is recruiting:

https://youtu.be/8HZ4DnVfWYQ

Kooshy , Nov 20 2020 22:07 utc | 24

The amount of hourly propaganda directed at and leveled at American people is unprecedented, I had not seen it this intense in past years it reminds me of my High school days in Shah's Iran. This kind and this intense of control on news can only be due to instability of the regime. IMO in coming Biden Adminstration regime will impose new rules for control of internet and access to foreign news. Currently using my Mobil cellular I can't access any Iranian news site.

kiwiklown , Nov 21 2020 1:30 utc | 37

"Those who are corrupt enough to tell any lie required to support the world view of their editors and media owners."

C S Lewis called this type bastards.

I agree, and hope they are reading this right now.

Oz , Nov 21 2020 0:32 utc | 36

https://marisol-nostromo.medium.com/the-unfinished-work-of-the-church-committee-f702ac8f94b1

[Nov 18, 2020] Hawley Bucks Trend, Backs Afghanistan Exit

Hawlwy wrote to the acting Defense secretary, Christopher C. Miller. "The costs of the war in Afghanistan continue to mount, and they are borne disproportionately by working Americans. For these reasons, majorities of Americans, including veterans of the war itself, have long called for an end to the war in Afghanistan. Yet most of our nation's policymakers have ignored them."
Nov 17, 2020 | hawley.senate.gov

By siding with Trump's push to leave the country, the rising star senator distinguishes himself on the right.

CURT MILLS

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., allied himself with the White House and those calling for a swift exit from Afghanistan on Tuesday.

"I write to express my support for President Trump's plan for the prompt withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan," Hawley wrote to the acting Defense secretary, Christopher C. Miller. "The costs of the war in Afghanistan continue to mount, and they are borne disproportionately by working Americans. For these reasons, majorities of Americans, including veterans of the war itself, have long called for an end to the war in Afghanistan. Yet most of our nation's policymakers have ignored them."

Hawley's signaling is significant because it runs counter to the political assault on the Hill by Republicans to stop President Trump's plot to exit from the troubled theater in his administration's closing days. On Monday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed, in no uncertain terms, his vociferous opposition to a further drawdown: "A rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan now would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm."

McConnell was joined by Michael McCaul, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, among others, in expressing his displeasure with recent developments in President Trump's national security team. An embattled Trump has suddenly cleaned house at the Pentagon , in a maneuver widely described as essentially outlaw.

Trump's moves at DoD are seen as part score-settling -- and part delivering on a major campaign promise. If he sticks the landing, Trump's acolytes insist drawing down further in Afghanistan cracks the door open still wider for a potential 2024 repeat run.

"You wrote recently, 'All wars must end,'" Hawley wrote to Miller. "The time has come to end the war in Afghanistan. I urge you to stand with President Trump and bring our troops home as expeditiously as possible."

Hawley has now staked out new territory, putting finishing touches on a Afghanistan policy he has been developing for some time. In September, he told this magazine : "It's time for a strategic refocus. We have spent too much time on adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere that do not serve our strategic aims and place enormous burdens on the class of working men and women who fight our wars."

Notably, Hawley's statements stand apart from other Republican senators, who are keen to enhance their bona fides to become the leader of a future, "realigned" Republican Party.

Echoing McConnell, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told Politico : "The concern would be it would turn into a Saigon-type of situation where it would fall very quickly and then our ability to conduct operations against terrorist elements in the region could be compromised. That's my primary concern right now."

But the leadership class in Republican Washington continues to mostly diverge from those reading the tea leaves on the future of the party. Rubio was not joined by Sen. Tom Cotton, who is traditionally seen as the most hawkish of the trio. Cotton has previously noted that he shares Trump's frustration with the war. And Ted Cruz, another 2024 contender, has so far been silent.


dragnet20 a day ago ,

Nice rhetoric, but I'll believe it when I see it.

In any case, Hawley is the only GOP hopeful on the scene right now I could remotely contemplate voting for in 2024. Will continue watching him with interest.

Royal Oaks dragnet20 a day ago ,

"I'll believe it when I see it."

Me too. Too many Israeli and Saudi meddlers in Washington. They get what they want, and they don't want Americans coming home.

Rkramden66 a day ago ,

Wake me up when Hawley renounces his opposition to labor unions.

CPT a day ago ,

That's good to see. I like Hawley a lot on domestic policy, but he's stuck to a more or less pre-Trump GOP foreign policy up till now. He needs to drop the deranged hostility to Iran to really win my support, but supporting a drawdown of our Middle Eastern wars is better than the neocons banging the drums for indefinite occupations.

CPT a day ago ,

That's good to see. I like Hawley a lot on domestic policy, but he's stuck to a more or less pre-Trump GOP foreign policy up till now. He needs to drop the deranged hostility to Iran to really win my support, but supporting a drawdown of our Middle Eastern wars is better than the neocons banging the drums for indefinite occupations.

Feral Finster a day ago ,

According to Reuters, citing Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan will be reduced, but not a full withdrawal.

Once again, a failed Trump pullout. Such a pathetic little cuck.

marku52 Feral Finster 7 hours ago ,

Really. Just write the damned document. Withdraw within 2 weeks. Get it over. This war is old enough to vote, for Dog's sake.

kouroi a day ago ,

Removal of troops from Syria should be the first step, since the illegality of that occupation is the most obvious, and then Iraq. Afghanistan is somewhat prioritize because it is less important strategically right now and more cumbersome to deal with...

But the US would rather have its diplomatic missions in every country replaced with military bases...Superpowers!


ZizaNiam
kouroi 20 hours ago
,

Israel needs the US troops there to facilitate the genocide of Syria's Christians, which General Soleimani and Hezbollah, along with the Syrian Arab Army, were protecting.

kouroi ZizaNiam 19 hours ago ,

Oh, nothing so base. It's about the Golan Heights and preserving and maybe even extending land holdings Israel has secured, including in Jordan...

PR Doucette a day ago ,

The saddest thing about this whole affair is that it is a sham to make it look as if Trump has kept his promise to bring US troops home and then blame Biden for supporting endless wars if he has to send US troops back in to protect the troops that were left behind. As the graduate of an elite law school Hawley is bright enough to know that terrorism is not going to abate in Afghanistan or the Middle East or in parts of Africa but he also realizes that the great grandparents of the people who voted for him were skeptical about the US entering WWI, had grandparents who did not see any reason to enter WWII until Pearl Harbor, and parents who did not think invading Afghanistan made sense until 9/11. If you are thinking of running for president in 2024 this may seem like a reasonable political move but ultimately really shows how facile Hawley's understanding of international affairs really is and a basic dishonesty about what is really involved in maintaining US global power.

I Don't Matter • a day ago ,

Trump only had 3 years and 10 months to do this. If only he were interested in ending wars as opposed to trying hard to start new ones.

[Nov 18, 2020] Biden Administration will no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy. by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
Nov 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power in America is for real and it is something that some Jews are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it functions. If you're an American ( or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on. If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S. Congress or White House.

And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully, if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.

It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a critic of Israeli brutality. He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues being promoted by the Zionist lobby.

There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating insider tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is entitled The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example, how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."

Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the Obama presidency."

And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."

Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called "special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.

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 is inform@cnionline.org .

[Nov 18, 2020] When any Washington Swamp creature talks about "threats to US national security" in reality they are talking about threats to the USA global hegemony

Highly recommended!
Threat inflation is like Apple pie among Washington swamp national security parasites
Notable quotes:
"... The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist. ..."
"... Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of "threat-size" . . . ..."
Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Nov 17 2020 22:23 utc | 66

Applying any logic to the "threats" against the US "national security" AKA world hegemony becomes much simpler with recognizing two simple facts:

1. The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist.

2. Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of "threat-size" . . .

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, & African "terrorists" -- did I miss anyone?

[Nov 18, 2020] A short summary of Trump achivements: Good -- a cut of State department regime change budget; Bad -- extra 149 billion to MIC via Pentagon budget

Highly recommended!
Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

William Gruff , Nov 17 2020 20:56 utc | 43

US State Department budget

2016: $53.4 billion
2020: $44.12 billion

Good job, Trump! Nice cut of that regime change budget!

Who wants to bet that Harris and the dead guy try to hike this budget for 2021 back up above its levels in its glory days of color revolutions?

Geronimo Black , Nov 17 2020 21:24 utc | 49

2016 Dept of Defense budget $585.3 billion
2020 Dept of Defense budget $665.0 billion +
2020 OCO (imperialist war operations) 69.0 billion

Is this added $149 billion in defense spending a "peace president" dividend I wonder?

[Nov 18, 2020] Chinese reaction on Pompeo recent "talking points" about China, issued by State Department

Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Nov 18 2020 20:12 utc | 13

Here's China's unofficial response via this Global Times editorial . I wish I could reproduce the art at the editorial's header as it's very spot-on:

"There is no new wording in the report, which can be seen as a collection of malicious remarks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other anti-China US politicians and senators. Right now, only a little more than 60 days are left for the current US administration. An official from the State Department explained that the report is not meant to constrain the next US administration. But the fact is the Department of State fears that the Biden administration will adjust US-China relations, and the release of the report is part of their efforts to consolidate the current extreme anti-China path.

"But most Chinese scholars who have read the report believe it is an insult to Kennan by labeling the report as Kennan-style. Kennan, then US charge d'affaires in Moscow, sent an 8,000-word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union. At least, there was no special political motive in Kennan's report. But the latest report is trying to leave a legacy for the extreme anti-China policy adopted by the Trump administration and fawning on Pompeo, which is evil in essence .

"The impulsive and capricious governing style of Donald Trump leaves sufficient room for politicians like Pompeo to give free play to their ambitions. The Department of State has become the governmental organ that has the most serious clashes with China, outperforming the CIA and the Department of Defense.

"Diplomats are supposed to be communicators, but Pompeo and his team have chilled the communication atmosphere with China. In the China direction, today's US Department of State can close its door.

"Surrounded by such deep hostility and prejudice toward China and the wild ambition of the secretary of state, how could the Department of State's Office of Policy Planning make out anything objective about China? Their observation ability, cautious attitude toward research, and sense of responsibility for history have been severely squeezed. They are just currying favor from their seniors and manipulating extreme paths, pretending to be 'thoughtful....'

"Chinese diplomatic and academic circles look down upon the Pompeo team, which lacks professionalism, and acts like a group of gangsters suddenly taking official positions. They not only have messed things up, but also hope to build their nonsense as legacy. Pompeo's choice of opportunists like Miles Yu as advisor in particular has increased Chinese people's doubts over the 'amateurism' and 'immorality' of the Pompeo team's China policy....

"The US' China policy is very much like 'drunk driving' internally while on the international stage it's like sailing against the current." [My Emphasis]

There's not much more to add aside for asking barflies to read the entire editorial.

[Nov 18, 2020] Pompeo besides being neocon and is a fanatic, crackpot 'Christian'

As any warmonger he is a fake Christian
Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
TominAZ , Nov 18 2020 19:54 utc | 5
Pompeo, if not shamed out of politics soon, will be as bad or worse than Trump, because besides being nuts is a fanatic, crackpot 'Christian'.

Dave , Nov 18 2020 19:56 utc | 6

7-10 each sound fine but given the record of recent US leaders I wouldn't expect them to be implemented with the good of mankind in mind.
karlof1 , Nov 18 2020 19:59 utc | 7
I posted this to the Biden thread, but it belongs here.

RT op/ed analysis of Pompeo's China containment policy plan, "The Elements of the China Challenge" :

"Although it is hardly atypical of the President Trump administration, the document is significant because it represents yet another attempt by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to immortalize his Cold War confrontation between the US and China, bind the succeeding administration to it and most strikingly, institutionalize anti-Beijing ideas into American bureaucracy.

"The push against China by the Trump White House is not designed to be a passing phase, but a permanent and defining change of direction, for which this entire term in office has sought to prepare. This document aims to be a blueprint for long-term ideological struggle and a series of aspirations for maintaining hegemony, an affirmation of priority and a statement that things cannot " go back to normal ". But it makes no guarantee that the US can ever adequately understand China, or that it will succeed in its aims.

"The reference to George F. Kennan in pitching this document is appealing given the historical parallels, but it is not an exact fit and this, in turn, helps shine a light on Pompeo's own ignorance of China. It might be described in one simple sentence: China is not the Soviet Union and the ideological stakes are not quite the same." [Emphasis Original]

While I'd agree that differences in ideology exist between China and the Outlaw US Empire, it is the Empire that's constructed upon and is living the Big Lie inherent within Neoliberalism, while China continues to perfect its already very efficient system of Collective Libertarianism through its revamped Democratic Centralism. The really big fundamental difference is that China has absolutely no need to lie to its people, whereas the exact opposite's true within the Neoliberal West. After a lengthy period of public input, the government meets and eventually publishes its 5-year plan of development, which is contained within an even larger plan that's also been devised with public input and once put together is also published for public consumption. And since 2010, all plans have existed within China's UN 2030 Development plan, which is also available to the public. In a great many respects. China is a more open society than the Outlaw US Empire. Why? Because it doesn't need to lie to its citizens because it fights against the corruption that provides the reason for such lies--China has no Financial Parasitism it must mask from its citizens whereas the Outlaw US Empire is drowning in a massive sea of corruption that is killing it. Clearly, Pompeo wants that to continue.

[Nov 18, 2020] Dem peaceniks are now chickenhawks and Dem party a second War party: It has been fascinating to see both Republicans and Democrats denounce Trump on his Afghan withdrawal with NPR "experts" warning how dangerous a withdrawal would be

Nov 18, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
William Hunter Duncan 10 hours ago

It has been fascinating to see both Republicans and Democrats denounce Trump on this. NPR yesterday was in full-on war propagation mode, all of it's "experts" warning how dangerous a withdrawal would be. Nary a mention anywhere that we have been there for 19 years, more mocking Trump for "what he calls never-ending wars."

Like I told a liberal I know, recently. when he was complaining how Republicans were destroying Democracy - why so sour? You won, remember? Now take heart, the Democratic Party, major media and the Intelligence Community will be in sync restoring Democracy.

I wonder if we made it illegal for weapons/security contractors to trade their stock in the markets, if most of this full throated support for war amongst our elite would evaporate?

E.J. Smith William Hunter Duncan 5 hours ago

The interesting part is that the condemnation of Trump is coupled with "we're on the cusp of victory" talk. America has been on the cusp of victory in Afghanistan multiple times, it seems.

The Obama surge was prompted by General McChrystal's representations back in 2009 that the war was winnable with more troops. In excess of 100,000 troops by 2011 was not sufficient to achieve victory. The war then became an exercise in Afghan self-determination and honorable withdrawal, reminiscent of "Vietnamization." This has been going on for nine years with, by all accounts, the Taliban increasing its control of the country. There is no doubt that a final withdrawal of U.S. troops would be a repeat of Saigon 1975.

Interestingly, the war morphed from removing Al Qaeda, propping up the Kabul government, and defeating the Taliban, to being a protracted counter-narcotic operation. Given the feudalistic realities of Afghan society, creating a Taliban-free, central government controlled Afghanistan based upon western concepts is not a reality.

There is no doubt as to Afghanistan's strategic importance based upon its location and resources. At the very least, those who condemn Trump for wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan can be honest about why we are still there, although it's not a mystery in geopolitical terms.

Loukas 8 hours ago

So, in Rubio's worldview Saigon would be better today if it were still occupied by American soldiers. This imperialistic gene has to be eradicated from within these Establishment armchair warriors. Our election of Donald Trump was a first raising of the hand to say..stop. Stop it. Your time is through.

And now, since Democrats have flipped from freedom-loving liberals to authoritarian leftists, they are united with the neo-con Republicans to keep imperialism alive and prospering. America will soon come to understand that they've made a huge blunder in replacing the one that has both the power and the will to turn us around. Only by electing more Donald J. Trumps will the fever finally be broken.

[Nov 17, 2020] Israel's Power is Unlimited by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
Nov 17, 2020 | www.unz.com

Even though there was virtually no debate on foreign policy during the recent presidential campaign, there has been considerable discussion of what President Joe Biden's national security team might look like. The general consensus is that the top levels of the government will be largely drawn from officials who previously served in the Obama administration and who are likely to be hawkish. There has also been, inevitably, some discussion of how the new administration, if it is confirmed, will deal with Israel and the Middle East in general.

Israelis would have preferred a victory by Donald Trump as they clearly understand that he was and still is willing to defer to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on nearly all issues. Indeed, that process is ongoing even though Trump might only have about nine more weeks remaining in office. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is reportedly preparing to sanction several international human rights organizations as anti-Semitic due to the fact that they criticize Israel's brutality on the West Bank and its illegal settlement policies. The White House is also prepared to free convicted but paroled Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from travel restrictions so he can move to Israel, where he is regarded as a hero. Pollard was the most damaging spy in U.S. history and any mitigation of his sentence has been opposed by both the Pentagon, where he worked, and also by the intelligence community.

Finally, it is widely believed that before the end of the year Trump will declare that the United States accepts the legitimacy of Israeli intentions to declare annexation of nearly all the Palestinian West Bank. The White House will actually encourage such an initiative reportedly "to sow hostility between Israel and the Biden administration." One should note that none of the pro-Israeli measures that are likely to come out of the White House enhance U.S. security in any way and they also do nothing particularly to benefit Trump's campaign to be re-elected through legal challenges.

If Biden does succeed in becoming president, the special place that Israel occupies in the centers of American power are unlikely to be disturbed , which is why Netanyahu was quick off the mark in congratulating the possible new chief executive. Biden has proudly declared himself to be a "Zionist" and his running mate Kamala Harris has been a featured speaker at the annual gatherings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington. Both are strongly supportive of the "special relationship" with the Israel and will make no effort to compromise America's apparent commitment to protect and nourish the Jewish state.

Though Israel is central to how the United States conducts its foreign policy, the country was invisible in the debates and other discussions that took place among candidates during the recent campaign. American voters were therefore given the choice of one government that panders to Israel at the expense of U.S. security or another party that does exactly the same thing. To be sure, Biden did state that he would work to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) relating to Iran's nuclear program, which was canceled by Trump. But he also indicated that it would require some amendment, meaning that the Iranians would have to include their missile program in the monitoring while also abandoning their alleged propensity to "interfere" in the Middle East region. The Iranian government has already indicated that additional conditions are unacceptable, so the deal is dead in the water. Israel has also privately and publicly objected to any new arrangement and has already declared that it would "save the option" of working through the Republican Senate to thwart any attempts by the Biden Administration to change things.

That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power in America is for real and it is something that some Jews are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it functions. If you're an American ( or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on. If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S. Congress or White House.

And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully, if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.

It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a critic of Israeli brutality. He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues being promoted by the Zionist lobby.

There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating insider tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is entitled The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example, how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."

Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the Obama presidency."

And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."

Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called "special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.

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 is inform@cnionline.org .


anon [287] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2020 at 5:24 am GMT • 15.5 hours ago

USA is dead, long live USA. We now officially live in JUSA, the New Weimar Republic. Actually we have been for almost 70 years, since the Cultural Revolution. America is no longer a Christian nation but a Jew nation, with all that that entails – greed, unscrupulousness, end justifies means, intolerance for dissent, mass deception, hypocrisy, over sensitivity, pleasure seeking, sexual deviance, narcissism, vengeful and punitive.

Jews now basically control all institutions of import in this country, from Wall Street to Hollywood, DC to Silicon Valley, and everywhere in between, the media, academia, judiciary, deep state including all of DOJ and the State department. Using their control of Big Tech, they can censor and suppress all dissent. Websites that try to go their own way like Alex Jones or Gab.com have trouble monetizing themselves and face constant media and left wing harrassment.

They control both msm and the "conservative" media like WSJ, FoxNews, Breitbart, Zerohedge, National Review all are just controlled opposition. No matter who is in the white house, we get the same things: Zionism, globalism, corporatism, endless wars, endless immigration.

How did they do it? Not just by controlling banks and profiting off wars that they instigated, but by selling sin. Jews own the entire sin industry. From the opium trade to the slave trade, tobacco trade, Bootlegging, JUUL, Opiod, marijuana, alcohol, Victoria's Secret, casinos and brothels in Vegas, HBO soft porn to hardcore porn, all are owned by Jews. Sin is an industry where supply creates demand, not the other way around. Using their lawyers, they first make it all legal, then make it fashionable. As Andrew Joyce so aptly put, "sordid commercial exploitation of vice", that is what Jews excel in.

The sin industry is a trillion dollar industry, and many of those trillions have been siphoned off to Israel, along with all the money from Wall Street swindling and the weapons industry. We are witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to Israel.

China-Russia-Iran may provide the world with an alternative for the future, if they can hold off this Jewish scorch, but the West is done for. We have nothing but decline, which will be hastened by Biden/Harris. Someone needs to keep reminding the Chinese it was a Jew David Sassoon who ran the opium trade and forced the two opium wars on them. Never forget, never surrender!

Lot , says: November 17, 2020 at 5:33 am GMT • 15.4 hours ago

" Jewish power in America is for real "

It's a sort of sexual charisma: all three of Joe's kids are married into the tribe, as is the VP. Though the crackhead kid's tatted up wife Melissa Cohen definitely isn't orthodox, though she's hot enough I'd forgive her!

"to accept that Israel is a foreign country"

Nah, it's like Canada, an America Jr. If the people disagreed, they'd have elected Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, etc.

Aspies aren't good with contradictions and ambiguity. Israel is both ours and sovereign, foreign and domestic. Most people get it though.

Anon [227] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2020 at 5:53 am GMT • 15.0 hours ago

Funny that BLM and antifa seem to have expressed no opinion on foreign policy isn't it?

I guess those are "unapproved games" in Revilo Oliver's words.

Tdstype2 , says: November 17, 2020 at 6:35 am GMT • 14.3 hours ago

Yo, the Great US of A, how about just do this one thing – fixed your problem of Israeli infestation in your institutions of power, instead of running around with a dynamite up you behind looking to fix other people's hemorrhoids all over the world

Colin Wright , says: Website November 17, 2020 at 7:04 am GMT • 13.9 hours ago

A piece discussing the roles played by Israel and the US in the coup in Egypt would be useful.

anonymous [112] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2020 at 7:22 am GMT • 13.6 hours ago

Based on what you write, it seems that only a smart, independent minded black politician as president would have any chance to stand up a bit to the Israeli lobby. The black politician does not have white guilt and is less self conscious of accusations of antisemitism. Obama was one of the few people who could fit the bill. Corey Booker is a potential black president meeting the description who could give it the college try and 25% stand up to the Israel lobby once in office. You should write more appreciatively of Barack Obama. Yeah, more BLM is a bad trade off that comes with a black president but life is always a package deal.

tiredofitall , says: November 17, 2020 at 7:47 am GMT • 13.1 hours ago

"Bibi the Backstabber" – Gee, I thought he and Trump were pals but he seemed pretty quick to acknowledge a Biden win BEFORE it has even been officially on the record. Regardless of who you want as figurehead of the USA, that seemed like a pretty crappy move but then again, we're talking about a snake. If Trump did end up "winning" after all the recounts and possible court rulings, do you think Trump would welcome "Bibi the Backstabber" back? "Fool me once " What a total farce this election and our Jew infested country is. Sad.

Ralph B. Seymour , says: November 17, 2020 at 8:11 am GMT • 12.7 hours ago

Jews didn't immigrate here in any number until the late 19th century. So it didn't take long for them to take it over completely.

But it's not enough for them to run everything. Now they are trying to perfect an outright slave plantation.

Clay Alexander , says: November 17, 2020 at 8:49 am GMT • 12.1 hours ago

OK move along nothing to see here, just another description of Jewish subversion 101 which has been going on for time immemorial. I think by now we should all know who's been behind every war, famine, economic collapse etc. The occidental countries have the remaining 11.5% of Whites left on the planet, it appears we are going to lose, so please try and enjoy what little time is left just don't forget to put your mask on.

Dr. Charles Fhandrich , says: November 17, 2020 at 8:51 am GMT • 12.1 hours ago

Joe Biden, a mediocre intellect and a corrupt long time D.C. insider as president of the U.S., running with a shrill shrew as vice president is supposed to be a positive development for the citizens of the U.S.? It's too funny. She was the first democrat to pull out of the running in the primaries and I believe Biden was second. Harris also suggested Biden is a racist, lol. It's too surreal to believe that this has happened. Thinking of Biden in charge, is like the feeling that the cave is going to collapse with you in it, vs. seeing the light at the end of the tunnel with President Trump. Oh well, ces't la vie

Achilles Wannabe , says: November 17, 2020 at 8:55 am GMT • 12.0 hours ago
@anon

Well said Anon. There is a lesson here. It is one which any dog or cat knows but Jewish social science has denied us: Do not let the parasite into the nest. A couple of million Ashkenazim were admitted to this country between 1880 and 1920. The rest is history – a history increasingly determined by THEM.

How this happened is a story I wish our white internet historians would tell us before the lights are shut off

Ray Caruso , says: November 17, 2020 at 9:22 am GMT • 11.6 hours ago

Israel is a leech. Liberalism in all its aspects, including racial egalitarianism, feminism, homosexualism, and democracy is a cancer that has spread from head to toe in the body of the nation. A leech won't kill you, but widespread cancer certainly will. What folly it is to focus so much attention on the little parasite outside while ignoring the massive malignancy inside.

Anonymous [661] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2020 at 9:29 am GMT • 11.4 hours ago

Regarding the photo accompanying this article: it is always beyond disconcerting to see Israel's satanic pentagram parked next to the American flag, it evinces the kind of sickening aplomb you would find in the image of a gorilla sodomizing a doe.

I appreciate Giraldi's incisive analysis. No one writes better about Israel's parasitic destruction of the US.

geokat62 , says: November 17, 2020 at 9:51 am GMT • 11.1 hours ago
@anon

Someone needs to keep reminding the Chinese it was a Jew David Sassoon who ran the opium trade and forced the two opium wars on them

This, of course, is in the Chinese ledger, but offsetting it is the more recent massive transfer of manufacturing jobs, technology, engineering services and other indirect benefits that derived from the "great offshoring" that first occurred in the late 70s. The apparatchiks of the CCP know who was responsible for arranging this unprecedented largesse and will consequently be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.

geokat62 , says: November 17, 2020 at 9:54 am GMT • 11.0 hours ago

The so-called "special relationship" must end

This should be demanded by every freedom-loving American.

Moi , says: November 17, 2020 at 10:09 am GMT • 10.8 hours ago
@anon

One can only conclude that American Christians relish being Jews' bitch. And here's the dumbest thing that the otherwise astute P. Giraldi has said: "Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of the sovereignty of foreign nations." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS: Phil, it's over for American. All hail, China!

RoatanBill , says: November 17, 2020 at 10:12 am GMT • 10.7 hours ago

All foreign aid should be turned off. Disaster relief should be looked at on a case by case basis, but that just allows the most corrupt countries to rely on it to come to the rescue when disaster strikes. I'd even prevent that.

Is there a single member of Congress with the intestinal fortitude to propose this? I doubt it. The selctions process has installed people so beholden to the current power structure that no one would dare put up a bill to stop foreign aid.

Doesn't that show that the US doesn't have a Federal Government, but does have a Federal Mafia?

Wizard of Oz , says: November 17, 2020 at 10:28 am GMT • 10.5 hours ago

It is time perhaps for this (in your words)

The so-called "special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any other country based on America's own self-interests.

But, falling back on realism, what is second best for Americans,and *much* more likely to be achieved?

As a preliminary sketch it is probably wrong to blame much of the disapointments and tribulations of the least prosperous 80 per cent of Americans on Israel, even if the cost of the Iraq war is included. Such a small country can eat only so much of America's breakfast. It is big business's complicity in the rise of China's economy at the expense of American workers and the open borders to cheap labour that counts for much more damage (I believe, though open to refutation).

So, what is a more likely acceptable outcome than your ideal prescription? I suggest that more Balkanising of the ME to eliminate threats to Israel would be part of it.That is happening already with the Saudis and Gulf States falling i to line. It seems hard to see why Israel should be unhappy about Russia remaining in Syria giving security to the Assad régime. How Iran can be dealt with isn't clear but it seems unlikely that Russia or China would be interested in an expensive effort to prevent the overthrow of the Iranian theocrats. It would suit both well enough that the ME was made up mostly of small countries mostly with oil or gas to sell and without much of a US connection. China would I guess be happy to regard Pakistan as the one Muslim country that deserved special attention.

What about the Palestinians? Oh yes, easily forgotten. Well, surely it isn't too difficult to think up several ways of giving them a much better deal than they have now with the one condition satisfied that Israeli Jews will not find themselves outbred and outvoted by Arab Muslims within the state of Israel. Secular outbred by Haredim? Oh well.

AnonStarter , says: November 17, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT • 10.4 hours ago

"Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."

And this , ladies and gentlemen, is why we come here and speak often of Jews: because they make it so difficult to discuss their reality anywhere else.

This fact has to change in America and Europe as well.

frankie p , says: November 17, 2020 at 11:19 am GMT • 9.6 hours ago

Antisemitism is a rational response to the manifestation of Jewish anti-gentilism in gentile societies.

Any gentile who isn't antisemitic needs education and development of the will to self-protect.

The Spirit of Enoch Powell , says: November 17, 2020 at 11:30 am GMT • 9.4 hours ago
@Anon

Well, the verified Twitter account of BLM UK put out the above tweet, after that happened we saw an ebbing away of support for it and footballers no longer kneeled before a game. Really tells you a lot about the totem poll and which groups are placed where.

Ugetit , says: November 17, 2020 at 11:51 am GMT • 9.1 hours ago
@anon

How did they do it?

What you said, (all excellent, btw) plus what PG has long said.

More details can be found in the 10 planks of Marx's Commie Manifesto and the Protocols.

PG's reference to the Weimar republic is something decent Americans need to understand as well.

Unfortunately, as pathetic as things are, it's apparently not yet degenerate enough to wake up and motivate enough people to improve anything.

BuelahMan , says: November 17, 2020 at 11:57 am GMT • 9.0 hours ago
@anonymous

Ridiculous. Obama is half black and half jewish.

He's all in with the theft and take over by jews.

Ugetit , says: November 17, 2020 at 12:05 pm GMT • 8.8 hours ago
@Lot e topic of genetic disorders, I'm happy that you brought up Asperger's.

Let me also note that Asperger's syndrome has its highest prevalence among Ashkenazi Jews and their descendants.

-David Mamet, (from his book Bambi Vs Godzilla, 2007), as quoted by Henry Makow
https://www.henrymakow.com/aspergers_–_the_jewish_diseas.html

Here's some more soft porn for ya.

Lovely, isn't it?

Ugetit , says: November 17, 2020 at 12:10 pm GMT • 8.8 hours ago
@Ray Caruso

Israel is a leech. A leech won't kill you, but widespread cancer certainly will.

I hope yer not a dokter.

Truth Hurts the Liars , says: November 17, 2020 at 12:14 pm GMT • 8.7 hours ago

One word describes all the World's troubles.

Jews.

Robjil , says: November 17, 2020 at 12:48 pm GMT • 8.1 hours ago
@Lot https://www.the-sun.com/news/1532069/hunter-biden-wife-melissa-cohen-married-children/

She is also said to be a documentary filmmaker.

Before she met Biden, she was supportive of the Obama presidency, and critical of President Trump.

After the white supremacist march at Charlottesville she wrote of the president: "To those of you who voted for this POS [piece of s ** t] you should be ashamed. That's all."

According to the New Yorker, Cohen has a tattoo of the word "Shalom," or "peace," in Hebrew on her bicep.

BL , says: November 17, 2020 at 12:51 pm GMT • 8.1 hours ago

Israel's Power Is Unlimited

While you might not have written the headline it's an accurate synopsis of your argument.

I shouldn't give you a hard time for it because it's accepted across the geopolitical universe on Israel. Including, as you have long detailed, by Israel itself.

Amusingly, if you compare the mirror position along this spectrum, for example, elimination/"It's the 51st state!," they complete each other.

It just simply isn't true. Israel isn't sui genesis. It isn't a planet that doesn't have to, or refuses to, obey the laws of geopolitical physics.

Think of it this way. There's a disingenuous disconnect between the public discussion and that which takes place behind the curtain. As with seemingly everything else, it's just more so when it comes to Israel.

All of that was the shortest predicate for suggesting you notice the slim to none argument from this author in defense of the JCPOA, much less what the Obama administration sold as a rapprochement with Iran.

Did it have any coherence in that regard? No, indeed the Iranians stupidly insisted on rubbing it in our faces as an abandonment of not just Israel but all other states in the region.

It's impossible to overstate how thoroughly this has discredited the proponents of a deal with Iran.

Whatever you think are Israel's malefactions, they are no legitimate basis for the USG to gift a trouble-making Iran anything. Least of all, regional hegemony at the expense of everyone else.

Katrinka , says: November 17, 2020 at 12:57 pm GMT • 8.0 hours ago
@anon

https://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/sassoon.htm

The link will provide a pretty good synopsis of Jewish involvement in the opium trade cartel in China.

BannedHipster , says: Website November 17, 2020 at 1:07 pm GMT • 7.8 hours ago

The Anti-Defamation League is a front for Jewish organized crime that launders their money and defames anyone who says anything about it. The ADL openly supports apartheid in occupied Palestine. All Silicon Valley companies, including Wikipedia, count them as an "expert" on "hate" – despite the ADL being openly pro-apartheid. All the major news media corporations quote them as "experts" despite them being nothing more than a partisan political lobby.

How is the world is such an organization considered "mainstream" as opposed to a fringe hate group?

Felix Krull , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm GMT • 7.7 hours ago
@Anonymous

Regarding the photo accompanying this article: it is always beyond disconcerting to see Israel's satanic pentagram parked next to the American flag

You not count good?

The Star of David is a hexagram, moron. No less disturbing, but do the fucking math.

anarchyst , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:12 pm GMT • 7.7 hours ago

When it comes to Israel, it is obvious that President Trump has pretty much given the jews everything they wanted.

From the annexation of Jerusalem proper to the Golan Heights, Israel has gained approval for its questionable, illegal actions from President Trump and others in the U S government. His encouragement of recognition of Israel by other middle eastern countries is telling.

President Trump has been dealing with jews all of his life, being in the New York City real estate market. He KNOWS how jews act and what they are capable of, along with their foibles and weaknesses.

Since Trump gave the jews just about everything they wanted, he is finally going to exact his "price" for acquiescing to Israeli demands and is going to demand something in return.

President Trump is about to reduce, if not withdraw the entire American troop presence in the middle east. American troops can be replaced with Israeli troops.

Of course the jews will cry foul and scream that they need an American troop presence, but if President Trump does anything right , the reduction or withdrawal of American troops in the middle east would be a good first step.

President Trump has already replace the Secretary of Defense with someone more amenable to him. The American military-industrial complex will not like the changes, but they can go "pound sand".

Old and Grumpy , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:34 pm GMT • 7.4 hours ago

Well they are the chosen ones, and the rest of us are just beasts of burden. Just ask them. They wrote it in their book. The real travesty was putting the Torah in the Bible. Or maybe the penultimate travesty was being forcibly converted to Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church?

Robjil , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm GMT • 7.3 hours ago
@Katrinka

Here is another good source about the Sassoon's destruction of China in the 19th century. The Chinese remember it well especially for what was done to their summer palace, Yuan ming yuan. It held 5000 years of Chinese history.

https://parsikhabar.net/news/the-dragon-awakens/18572/

Greta Handel , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:47 pm GMT • 7.1 hours ago

Deference of Washington's elected politicians to Israel is repeatedly discussed in these columns. Courts traditionally hesitate to adjudicate issues of Uncle Sam's wars and other "foreign policy," and even related questions ( FEC v. Akins ). Americans tend to assume and accept that the judicial "branch" of the USG has nothing to do with these matters.

However, with another Presidential election possibly headed to the SCOTUS, there's an intriguing adjective in this sentence:

One should note that none of the pro-Israeli measures that are likely to come out of the White House enhance U.S. security in any way and they also do nothing particularly to benefit Trump's campaign to be re-elected through legal challenges.

Does Dr. Giraldi believe that the measures may generally benefit the legal challenges?

Ugetit , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:52 pm GMT • 7.1 hours ago
@BannedHipster

Agree.

Speaking of the ADL, I think our host's article is a must read.:

American Pravda: the ADL in American Society

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

Ugetit , says: November 17, 2020 at 1:57 pm GMT • 7.0 hours ago
@Robjil

She is for "peace". What kind of "peace"?

Without a doubt, her "tat" notwithstanding, she meant "piece." As in a piece for her and hers sufficient to allow nothing left for the deplorable goyim.

UncommonGround , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:13 pm GMT • 6.7 hours ago
@Robjil on and so on.

After reading that I thought that Americans are really admirable. Kamala's both parents came recently from foreign countries which have no close relation with the US. They were recent immigrants, refugees from poverty and other inconveniences. A few years later the daughter becomes vice president of the country, the controler of the president (one of them) and possibly the next president and at the same time begins to tell Americans what they have to think and to want. It's not even merely her opinion. She is telling Americans what they have to think and to accept. You don't have any choice. Kamala has decided.

God's Fool , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:35 pm GMT • 6.3 hours ago

"It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences."

You're still walking on eggshells, Giraldi. You're either having problem understanding or are in deliberate need to evade the issue of a Jew not needing to practice Jewism (my definition of a complete Jew), that is to say, separate himself from Israel no Jew can nor will do so. Hence, America is either stuck with them or will have to declare that Jews, and only Jews, aren't part of this great experiment called United States of America. It'll hurt like hell to be divorced from present reality but at least this nation, without any natural enemies, will have a fighting chance of being a truly great country within the commity of nations. So long as a single Jew remains in America, there isn't any chance of having daylight between two separate nations. So, what's going to be, slavery with comfort or freedom with sacrifices?

Greta Handel , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:39 pm GMT • 6.3 hours ago
@Greta Handel

Sorry, that "particularly" is an adverb, not an adjective.

Ugetit , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:43 pm GMT • 6.2 hours ago
@Robjil

Thanks very much for that. Excellent article, full of details that I was not aware of, and extremely interesting site.

Seems to me that it would be a good fit to be published here.

GMC , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMT • 6.1 hours ago
@BuelahMan con black and 99% NWO white Zionist on the inside. 2005 Senator Obama heads to Donetsk, Ukraine with 40 million dollars to De arm the Ukrainian military – he was successful and I can more that prove it since I lived there shortly after and knew some Ukraine military guys. This was part/ start of the Maidan plan. Move along to 2013 " We now have the right to use propaganda against our own citizens" Prez. Obama. Veterans Today – Obama WAS born in Africa , but we support him 100% . And this is is also true which means we have a psyops webpage there. Nam Vet here – and I don't like seeing Veterans screwed over by other " Veterans".
Desert Fox , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm GMT • 6.0 hours ago

The key to zionist ie Israels power comes from the zionist owning the FED and from this came the zionist owning the government of the ZUS and from this came the trillions in debt and the unending wars for the zionists and for Israel.

Also from this control of the ZUS came the assassination of JFK and RFK and JFKjr. and the attack on the USS Liberty and the attack on the WTC on 911, which was used to plunge America into the unending wars against the Arabs, all for the benefit of Israel and the zionist dual citizen traitors in the ZUS.

Zionists are destroyers of nations and humanity and they are behind the covid-19 scam and psyop which is being used to destroy America and they are doing this via the World Economic Forum and the Rockefeller Foundation and UN Agenda 2030 which are the tips of the zionist spears aimed at the heart of America.

God help America.

John Q Duped , says: November 17, 2020 at 2:56 pm GMT • 6.0 hours ago
@anon

Well written and informative. They also own (and control) most churches and long ago rewrote the Bible. And of course they create and own money.

anon [287] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2020 at 3:00 pm GMT • 5.9 hours ago