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


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. – Issac Asimov
"War is the health of the State." -- Randolph Bourne

News US anti war movement Recommended Links Non-Interventionism Anti-globalization movement Economic nationalism Bannon
Anti war libertarians Ron Paul Tulsi Gabbard Dennis Kusinish Chris Hedges Ray Mcgovern -- the most  prominent anti war site run by linertarian Justin Raimondo
Paul Craig Roberts Philippics Neoliberal Globalization American biblical nationalism and religious far right American Exceptionalism Predator state Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living
Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism Who Rules America Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Debt slavery
American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Merchants of Debt Greece debt enslavement Eroding Western living standards Ukraine debt enslavement IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Wolfowitz Doctrine
Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism National Security State Demonization of Putin Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neoliberalism and Christianity The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism Neocolonialism Neoconservatism Media-Military-Industrial Complex The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Machiavellism Color revolutions
New American Militarism Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Demonization of Putin Cold War II Pathological Russophobia of the US elite Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Anti Trump Hysteria
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Hillary wet kiss with neocons Hillary role in Libya disaster Syria civil war Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press" Sect of fraudulent election witnesses
The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Paleoconservatism Machiavellism Humanitarian Imperialism  John Kenneth Galbraith Humor Antiwar Quotes

Noninterventionism: A Primer

America's alternative to war and empire is not "isolationism."

By Daniel Larison June 11, 2014

Americans have grown understandably weary of foreign entanglements over the last 12 years of open-ended warfare, and they are now more receptive to a noninterventionist message than they have been in decades. According to a recent Pew survey, 52 percent of Americans now prefer that the U.S. “mind its own business in international affairs,” which represents the most support for a restrained and modest foreign policy in the last 50 years. That presents a challenge and an opportunity for noninterventionists to articulate a coherent and positive case for what a foreign policy of peace and prudence would mean in practice. As useful and necessary as critiquing dangerous ideas may be, noninterventionism will remain a marginal, dissenting position in policymaking unless its advocates explain in detail how their alternative foreign policy would be conducted.

A noninterventionist foreign policy would first of all require a moratorium on new foreign entanglements and commitments for the foreseeable future. A careful reevaluation of where the U.S. has vital interests at stake would follow. There are relatively few places where the U.S. has truly vital concerns that directly affect our security and prosperity, and the ambition and scale of our foreign policy should reflect that. A noninterventionist U.S. would conduct itself like a normal country without pretensions to global “leadership” or the temptation of a proselytizing mission. This is a foreign policy more in line with what the American people will accept and less likely to provoke violent resentment from overseas, and it is therefore more sustainable and affordable over the long term.

When a conflict or dispute erupts somewhere, unless it directly threatens the security of America or our treaty allies, the assumption should be that it is not the business of the U.S. government to take a leading role in resolving it. If a government requests aid in the event of a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis (e.g., famine, disease), as Haiti did following its devastating earthquake in 2010, the U.S. can and should lend assistance—but as a general rule the U.S. should not seek to interfere in other nations’ domestic circumstances.

LarisonIf parties to a dispute request outside arbitration, the U.S. should be in a position to act as a neutral mediator—which presupposes that the U.S. is not actively backing one side against another. We have seen the futility and absurdity of trying to act as an “honest broker” while providing lopsided support to one side in a conflict, and this should have no place in a noninterventionist foreign policy. There could be a potentially large and active role for U.S. diplomats abroad, but not one in which the U.S. was attempting to dictate terms or to promote a particular cause. International engagement could not and would not cease in a noninterventionist foreign policy, but it would be of a very different kind.

One of the priorities of a noninterventionist agenda would be the scaling back of America’s numerous commitments overseas. This would be accomplished mainly by shifting burdens gradually to current allies and regional powers: ceding regional influence in Central Asia to India and Russia, for example, and encouraging a more independent foreign policy for allies such as Japan and Germany. In general, the states that have the most at stake in maintaining regional stability should be given the responsibility for securing it. U.S. commitments have been building up over decades, so it is neither realistic nor desirable to end them suddenly. Nonetheless, there are also far more commitments than the U.S. can afford, and many of them are relics of the struggle with the Soviet Union or the remains of a “War on Terror” that has expanded beyond anything that most Americans imagined when it began a decade ago. Cutting back security entanglements is a long-delayed and necessary adjustment that the U.S. should have been making for the last 20 years. But it will not be sufficient simply to return to status quo ante at the start of the 21st century. The U.S. was already overcommitted around the world before the Bush era and will still be so after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Ideally, the U.S. would reduce its overseas military presence in the Near East to at most what it was in the years before Desert Storm in 1991, and continue to reduce its presence in Europe as European governments bear more of the costs of their own defense. To date, wealthy allies have been able to skimp on their military spending, on the safe assumption that the U.S. would be ready and willing to make up the difference, but this arrangement is neither sustainable nor in our best interests. It not only creates an unhealthy dependence that ends up dragging unwilling Europeans into U.S. wars of choice, but as we saw in Libya, it perversely pulls the U.S. into European wars of choice because Europe’s governments cannot fight them on their own.

NATO is outdated and unnecessary, but provided that it functions purely as a defensive alliance it wouldn’t necessarily have to be dissolved. If the alliance continued to exist, the U.S. should not use it or permit it to be used as cover for members’ wars of choice and “out of area” missions. It should go without saying that there would be no further NATO expansion, which does nothing except antagonize Russia to the detriment of regional stability. If the alliance’s security guarantees to current members are to mean anything, they shouldn’t be extended to countries that the U.S. and other member nations are not actually willing to defend. To that end, U.S. and NATO officials should stop giving false encouragement to would-be member states that will never be admitted.

A noninterventionist U.S. would keep the major treaty allies it has for the time being but would also review its relationships with the many client states that neither act like nor deserve the name of ally. Clients that expose the U.S. to unnecessary conflicts or create dangerous tensions with other major powers are liabilities, and the U.S. should alter relations with them accordingly. That doesn’t require the U.S. to have poor relations with those states, but it does mean that they would stop receiving support and indulgence when their interests and ours clearly diverge. Many client state relationships would need to be downgraded as a result, and U.S. aid to them would be correspondingly reduced or eliminated.

In keeping with President Washington’s exhortation in his Farewell Address, the U.S. would seek to “observe good faith and justice toward all nations” and to “cultivate peace and harmony with all.” That means that a noninterventionist U.S. would work to maintain normal and full diplomatic relations with as many states as possible, and it would restrict or cut off trade with other states only in the most extreme cases. A noninterventionist foreign policy would very rarely rely on sanctions as a tool, and then only when they are targeted specifically against regime officials rather than the civilian population. In general, an America following Washington’s advice would promote both trade and diplomatic engagement rather than employing the tactics of embargo and isolation.

The U.S. would also refuse to take sides in the internal quarrels of other countries. The sovereignty of other states would be respected much more consistently than in past decades. The U.S. would refrain from destabilizing foreign governments or aiding in their overthrow, and it would not make a habit of siding with whichever protest movement happened to be in the streets of a foreign capital. Likewise, it would refrain from propping up and subsidizing abusive and dictatorial regimes and would condition U.S. aid on how a government treats its people. While there may be a need to cooperate with authoritarian states on certain issues, governments that torture or violently suppress peaceful protests, including the current Egyptian government, shouldn’t be supported in any way by American taxpayers.

War might be necessary at some point, but if so it would be waged only in self-defense or the defense of a treaty ally. A noninterventionist U.S. would never wage a preventive war— which is contrary both to international law and morality—and would generally be wary of using force even when it could be justified. The U.S. should always avoid giving allies and clients the impression that they have a blank check from Washington, since that will tend to make them more combative and unreasonable in disputes with their neighbors. Allies and clients that wanted to pursue reckless and provocative courses of action would be actively discouraged, and it would be the responsibility of the U.S. to pull these states back from avoidable conflicts. A noninterventionist U.S. would manage relations with other major powers by seeking to cooperate on matters of common interest and by avoiding unnecessary disagreements on those issues where the U.S. has relatively little at stake. The U.S. and other major powers are bound to have conflicting interests from time to time, but these unavoidable disagreements shouldn’t be compounded by picking fights over every issue where we differ. As long as the U.S. has allies on the borders of other major powers, there will always be a certain degree of mistrust and tension in our relations. However, the U.S. shouldn’t make this worse by seeking to enlarge our alliances or increase our influence in countries that have historically been in the orbit of another major power. The goal here should be to keep tensions with other major powers at a tolerable minimum and to reduce the possibility of renewed great power conflict in the new century.

As George Washington also said: “In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” For that reason, a noninterventionist U.S. would be one that doesn’t seek to demagogue or exaggerate foreign threats, nor would it cultivate either hostility towards or adoration of any other country. Above all, it won’t seek to make the U.S. the champion of any other country’s interests at our expense.

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

Senior editor Daniel Larison blogs at

Opposition to New American Militarism

Libertarians (along will less numerous and less influential paleoconservatives) are the only more or less influential faction of the US society that oppose what Basevich called New American Militarism. 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 (

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 new epidemic of the US militarism which started after Cold War ended was well analyzed by Professor Bacevich (who is former colonel of the US army) who called it New American Militarism. Bacevich's book  Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War  describe the "sacred trinity" of global military presence, global power projection, global interventionism is used to achieve those ends. 

Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power.  They profess that the US that we are 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 ( 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).


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;

and (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 naíve 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.

Top Visited
Past week
Past month


Old News ;-)

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 1900

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Aug 05, 2020] Democratic Party Boosters Have Little to Offer by Philip Giraldi

Aug 05, 2020 |

Hillary is a co-founder of Onward Together , a Democratic Party front group that is affiliated to other activist organizations. In a recent e-mail she played the race card in a bid to solidify the black vote behind the Democratic Party, writing "Friend, George Floyd's life mattered. Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor's lives mattered. Black lives matter. Against a backdrop of a pandemic that has disproportionately ravaged communities of color, we are being painfully reminded right now that we are long overdue for honest reckoning and meaningful action to dismantle systemic racism."

It is, of course, a not-so-subtle bid to buy votes using the currently popular code words "systemic racism" as a pledge that the Democrats will take steps to materially benefit blacks if the party wins the White House and a majority in the Senate. She ends her e-mail with an odd commitment, "I promise to keep fighting alongside all of you to make the United States a place where all men and all women are treated as equals, just as we are and just as we deserve to be." The comment is odd because she is on one hand promising to promote the interests of one group based on skin color while also stating that everyone should be "treated as equals." Someone should tip her off to the fact that employment and educational racial preferences and reparations are not the hallmarks of a government that treats everyone the same.

But if one really wants to dig into the depths of the Democratic Party soul, or lack thereof, there is no one who is better than former U.N. Ambassador and Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, the estimable Madeleine Albright. She too has written an e-mail that recently went out to Democratic Party supporters, saying:

"I'm deeply concerned. Donald Trump poses an existential threat to our standing in the world and continues to threaten the decades of diplomatic progress we had made. It is easy to forget from the comfort of our homes that for many people, America is a beacon of hope and opportunity. We're known as a country that keeps our promises and upholds justice and democracy, and that didn't just happen overnight. We've spent decades building our nation's reputation on the world stage through careful, strategic diplomacy -- but in just under four years, Trump has done unspeakable damage to those relationships and has insulted even our closest allies."

Albright, who is perhaps most famous for having stated that she thought that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. imposed sanctions was "worth it," is living in a fantasy bubble that many politicians and high government officials seem to inhabit. She embraces the America the "Essential Nation" concept because it makes her and her former boss Bill Clinton look like great statesmen. She once enthused nonsensically that "If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."

Madeleine Albright's view that "America is a beacon of hope and opportunity known as a country that keeps our promises and upholds justice and democracy" is also, of course, completely delusional, as opinion polls regularly indicate that nearly the entire world considers the U.S. to be extremely dangerous and virtually a rogue state in its blind pursuit of narrow self-interest combined with an unwillingness to uphold international law. And that has been true under both Democratic and Republican recent presidents, including Clinton. It is not just Trump.

Albright is clearly on a roll and has also submitted to a New York Times interview , further enlightening that paper's readership on why the Trump administration is failing in its job of protecting the American people. The questions and answers are singularly, perhaps deliberately, unexciting and are largely focused on coronavirus and the new world order that it is shaping. Albright faults Trump for not promoting an international effort to defeat the virus, which is perhaps a bridge too far for most Americans who are not even very receptive to a nationally mandated pandemic response, let alone one requiring cooperation with "foreigners."

Albright's persistence as a go-to media "expert" on international relations is befuddling given her own history as an integral part of the inept foreign policy promoted by the Clinton Administration. She and Bill Clinton became cheerleaders for an unnecessary Balkan war that still resonates and were responsible for what was possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder (with the possible exception of the Iraq War) since the Second World War. That consisted of ignoring the commitment to post-Soviet Russia to not take advantage of the 1991 end of Communism by expanding U.S. or NATO military presence into Eastern Europe. Clinton/Albright reneged on that understanding and opened the door for many of the former Soviet allied states to enter NATO, thereby introducing a hostile military presence right up to Russia's border.

Simultaneously, the U.S. enabled the election as Russian president of the hapless drunk Boris Yeltsin, who, guided by advisers sent by the White House, oversaw the western looting of his country's natural resources. The bad decision-making under the Clintons led inevitably to the rise of Vladimir Putin as a corrective, which, exacerbated by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and a maladroit Donald Trump, has in turn produced the poisoned bilateral relationship between Washington and Moscow that currently prevails.

So, one might reasonably suggest to Joe Biden that if he really wants to get elected in November it would be a good idea to keep the Clintons, Albright and maybe even Obama carefully hidden away somewhere. Albright's interview characteristically concludes with her plan for an "Avengers style dream team" to "fix the world right now." She said that "Well, it certainly would be a female team. Without naming names, I would really try to look for women who are in office, both in the executive and legislative branch. I would try to have a female C.E.O., but also somebody who heads up a nongovernmental organization. You don't want everybody that's exactly the same. Oh, and I'm about to do a program for the National Democratic Institute with Angelina Jolie, and she made the most amazing movie about what was going on in Bosnia, so I would want her on my team."

No men allowed and a Hollywood actress who is regarded as somewhat odd? Right.

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 <a://" title="" href="">, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is <" title="" href="">

Priss Factor , says: Website August 4, 2020 at 4:05 am GMT

Elites are afraid that vulgar Trump will give THE GAME away.

Elites like to speak softly and use a big stick.

Be imperialist with 'liberal democratic' face.

Trump shows the obnoxious face of US power.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website August 4, 2020 at 4:14 am GMT

Hillary and Barack were also complicit in unnecessary wars against Libya and Syria that have devastated both countries.

Most Americans remain unaware of their destruction of Libya, Africa's most prosperous nation, which claimed 40,000 black lives. Thousands more were killed as they destroyed Somalia and Sudan as part of the neocon plan from the Bush era to destroy "seven countries in five years" as General Wesley Clark told the world. Thousands more died as they attempted to destroy Syria. Here is a short summary of their destruction of Libya:

Majority of One , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:33 am GMT

Take a close look at the visage of Mad Albright. What do you see beyond the simple ravages of the aging process on a life misspent? Check out those eyes, unmasked by the rouge. Take a close look. What do you see? Can you discern the sociopathic evidence, the haunting by the scores of thousands of Iraqi children who starved to death under the tender mercies of United $tates of America Corporation's foreign policy on behalf of the agenda of the elite crime clans of highest international finance.

Maddie is a minion, a minion for genocide and for a total lack of elementary human empathy. She is an ambulatory exemplar of Kali Yuga, the age of devolution, which in polar opposition to the Celestial Kingdom which reigned in China as recently as the Ming Dynasty. During that era where administrative positions were based as much as possible on merit, the contrast is vivid versus the current reality in our ruptured republic where instead of the cream, the scum rises to the top.

Derer , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:55 am GMT

Remove that pic of know nothing old owl from this site – some children might see it!

We need updates on Biden's mega corruption in Ukraine investigation. Trump was impeached for talking to Ukraine president about Biden's corruption and that lifetime taxpayers leech is Democrats front runner for the highest office – pathetic.

Ahoy , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT

During the days of her power and glory (Yeltsin years) Albright had made nine maps of the countries that would be created by the dissolution of Russia. Somebody walked in the poker game room and said "Let's play a different game". Enter the Putin era.

The democrats are just snake skins laying on the asphalt. The new sheriff in town (Syria, Libya) is laying out a different plan. Good by NWO , halo multipolar world.

Joe Levantine , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:54 am GMT

Trump declared on many occasions " we are there because we want the oil"; crude? Yes but honest at least. For those who prefer smooth talkers like the Clintons and the Obamas, I state that the legacy of those two administrations has done more harm to the foreign perception of US power In the Middle East and Eastern Europe than any vulgar language pronounced by Trump who, so far, can be credited with not having started any foreign wars.

At least Trump tried to withdraw American troops from Syria only to be kept in check by the reality of the American Deep state power structure. Had he succeeded in his endeavour, US Russia relations would have better than they are today.

Yukon Jack , says: August 4, 2020 at 6:06 am GMT

Three months to the election and what is on the main menu? Two old white men, neither fit to serve the office of the Presidency. The nation is a tired old whore, spent from all those wars for Zion, and it seems to me the crazy cat lady from the Simpsons is better than Trump or Biden. Both candidates are loony tune, both are completely unacceptable. We are looking at Weimar in the mirror. The nation has run it's course, the Republic is dead.

(Weimar Germany, of course, collapsed. Weimar is also the prelude democratic state before the rise of the authoritarian state. All those who thought Trump was a new Hitler are fools, Trump is the slavish whore of the Jews, not the opposing force, not the charismatic leader who restores sanity to the nation wrecked by Jews. What Trump is, is the final wrecking ball, not the savior.)

Gone are the glory days of imperial dreams, Amerika is not longer fit to wage another big war in the Middle East for Israel. So what is Bibi to do, Israel is in corona crazy lockdown, and his influence on Amerikan politics seems to me slipping badly. How much longer will AIPAC be allowed to influence our politicians if we go into a hyper deflationary crash? It seems to me the Greater Israel project is about to get the rug pulled out, because if the USA crashes and burns no one will tolerate one more cent going to that god forsaken shithole.

Franz , says: August 4, 2020 at 7:08 am GMT

Albright is clearly on a roll

Most people thought she was dead. I sure did.

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."

Whom the gods would destroy they first make Madeleine.

vot tak , says: August 4, 2020 at 8:59 am GMT

The main difference between the reps and dems is their party names. Both represent the same oligarch interests. Most of the dem objections to trump are psywar manipulations for public consumption, not serious policy differences. Pretty much all fluff. The reps also do the same about influencial dems, they endlessly talk nonsense about inconsequential things about them.

The drama queenery is to manipulate the public into thinking their votes for either party actually matter in some way. As of late, that psywar has been failing since most people don't see much difference between the two and believe both parties don't represent them and are lying scum. Trying to neutralize this view by the people is part of the reason the psywar critters have ramped up the hysterics.

Really No Shit , says: August 4, 2020 at 11:32 am GMT

Barack's mother, Madeleine's father and Chelsea's husband all have one thing in common and that something is without which sleepy Joe can't be elected so the author's advice to keep Obamas, Clintons and Albright at bay is moot at best!

chuckywiz , says: August 4, 2020 at 12:06 pm GMT

Her statement about Iraqi children should not come as a surprise to any. She was is from that part of Europe which is famous for being racist.

I came across with an interesting story during Balkan "peace" negotiations in a Paris in 90s. The Bosnian and Serbian delegates were negotiating in Paris hotel where American delegate was staying. One time, at 4 O'clock in the morning out curiosity sMadeline went and knocked on the negotiators door. One of them opened the door and failed to recognize her and thought her to be the cleaning lady. Told her to come back later.
That role suits her perfectly.

ThreeCranes , says: August 4, 2020 at 12:13 pm GMT

I would rather live in a State headed up by Vladimir Putin and his cronies than in one led by Albright and hers.

Albright puts us, we gentiles, in the same basket as those 500,000 Iraqi children; contemptible nothings, dismissed with a backwards wave of the hand.

Putin, at least, would recognize and honor our common European ancestry and heritage .

BL , says: August 4, 2020 at 1:08 pm GMT

Set everything else aside and consider the relationship of each POTUS to the sovereign.

The terminology I use is that they fall somewhere on the spectrum from figurehead to real POTUS.

Obama and Trump are opposites in this respect. Obama took office having gifted the national security state a globally appealing front-man. While he had campaigned and started his presidency looking like he wanted to use his power to move the needle in the right direction, he was quickly snapped like a butter bean, retreating into the presidential safe space offered, at least up until that point, to a POTUS that accepted the constrained role to which the American presidency had been consigned in the modern era.

There were signs almost immediately with Obama. After decisively winning election and becoming our first black president, he was house-trained early on over a single comment defending his Harvard professor friend after a silly arrest.

Does anyone other than me even remember this incident? Or how it completely emasculated the new POTUS, with him retreating behind a teleprompter for everything other than occasional unscripted remarks that, if unwittingly notable or problematic, were quickly corrected by some handler.

Now consider Trump. Both as candidate and POTUS he's Obama's opposite. Where Obama had the establishment wind at his back, writ large those same forces tried to destroy Trump's candidacy and presidency.

Rather than belabor any particulars I'll just note that the psychological driver for the ruling and governing classes, regardless of their ideological and programmatic preferences, is boundless resentment toward him.

After all, it isn't an overstatement to note that more than any other president, Trump got there on his own, with a near complete array of establishment forces, domestic and foreign, against him, including his own party.

Who would have thought such a thing possible before Trump did it?

Little has changed since 2016. We're in our current moment because destroying Trump remains as close to a dues ex machina as any of us have or will see in our lifetimes. There are real, monumental interests at stake but when you get right down to it most personalities in the ruling and governing classes -- who to a one grew up with mama telling them they should be POTUS someday, need him gone so they can go back to feeling better about themselves.

A123 , says: August 4, 2020 at 1:31 pm GMT
@RoatanBill pointees he has to placate some truly awful people, such as Mitt Romney. Some personnel selections that appear to be made by the President are actually part of package deals where key Senators get to pick their names. That is why certain parts of the administration are out of touch with Trump's agenda.

Trump has been 100% successful preventing NeoConDemocrats from starting new wars. Unwinding the messes he inherited from prior administrations is much more complicated.

Hopefully Trump's now inevitable second term will include a friendlier Senate. That will help him get more done than his first term which was impeded by the ObamaGate deception.

RoatanBill , says: August 4, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT
@A123 Is that true or isn't it? Yes or no?

I don't care about all the political backstabbing and massaging. If he had any balls he'd use the same New York English I grew up with and tell the entire Congress, the Supreme Court and the intel agencies to go F themselves and do so on national TV. The silent majority in the country would back up his play.

But he doesn't do that because he's a bought and paid for politico just like the rest of them. The deep state probably has dirt on him like everyone else in the District of Criminals and they tell him how to behave. He backs off and allows more deaths to occur to save his sorry ass from some exposure.

A123 , says: August 4, 2020 at 2:34 pm GMT
@RoatanBill asking the wrong question . Let me Fix That For You.

As Impeachment Jury, the Senate has final say on whether Trump stays in office.

Is that true or isn't it? Yes or no?

Are you leading a movement to:
-- Jettison the Constitution
-- Dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court
-- Proclaim Trump as God Emperor of the Golden Throne
When you finish this task, I will back your position that Trump can act unilaterally with regard to foreign troop deployments.

Until then, I strongly recommend a more realistic and nuanced view on what a President can accomplish.

anonymous [400] Disclaimer , says: August 4, 2020 at 2:41 pm GMT

complicit in unnecessary wars against Libya and Syria

That's putting it in polite terms. In reality it's massive war criminality, wars of aggression that killed, maimed and uprooted millions of people in other countries. Not that it caused as much of a stir domestically as the death of Floyd but there you have it, the order of priorities of the American people and their supposed leaders. During the Vietnam war a common chant was "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?". This is true for the Clintons, Obama, Albright and all the rest of them yet somehow they still have their fans. They're past their expiration dates yet are still kicking around since the Dem party is sclerotic with no new blood, no new ideas, just the same old parasites. Their presidential candidate is way past retirement age and has been obviously faltering in public. This is their champion, a lifelong mediocrity who is entering senility? US no longer has any wind in its sails.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 4, 2020 at 2:47 pm GMT

O think out move in the Balkans was essentially correct. Even Russia scolded their allies for their behavior as over the top in brutality. If Russia your closest ally says you are over the top -- then there's a good chance the genocide claim has merit.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

But I see no reason for Dr. Giraldo to be tepid here. somalia is the a complete embarssment. The admin took a feed and water operation and turned into a "warloard" hunt without any clue began interfering into the internal affairs of a complex former colonized region left bankrupt to reconfigure itself and began a failed bid to set aright -- ohhh that should sound familiar.

1. They turned a mess into a "warlord" victory for the leader they thought most dangerous(and I hate that word and its connotations -- a civil conflict) and then to top it off

2. ran away with their tail between their legs -- it was in my mind the second sign of US vulnerability to asymmetric warefare

counter balance that against not intervening in the genocide in Africa's Rwanda. The deep level hypocrisy here or complete bankrupt moral efficacy -- intervening in Bosnia-Herzegovina but completely ignoring the a worse case in Africa.

All of which occurred under the foreign policy headship of Mrs Albright. Ahhh they are women hear them roar . . . Let's get it straight.

Women wanted us in

Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, they want to intervene . . . in the name of humanity for any host of issues, in a bid to appear tough they will on occasion say the incedulous -- but the bottom lie

female leadership has demonstrated to be no more effective, astute, or beneficial than that of the men.

And allow me to get this out of the way before it starts though start it will,

In fact, it appears that not even white skin is not road to effective political leadership or governance as all of the key players have been predominately and by that I mean near all white. But here the test cases about femininity alone being a key qualifier just does not pan out. And no personal offense Dr. Giraldi neither is an elite education.

RoatanBill , says: August 4, 2020 at 2:52 pm GMT
@A123 ght as the dollar keeps declining in importance and the whole world is sick of the sanctions and bullying.

So, Yes, I'm in favor of ending the Constitution as it has shown to be a useless piece of paper except to deceive those that think it's worth something. Yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of the criminals in DC including the asshat president, all of congress and the absolutely useless supreme court. I'm in favor of 50 new countries once the empire expires offering 50 experiments on how to govern and let the best idea win.

Your more nuanced approach is exactly what Trump is doing – exactly nothing. He's the most do nothing president in decades.

W. Baker , says: August 4, 2020 at 2:56 pm GMT

"Whom the gods would destroy they first make Madeleine." Is it okay, if I steal that derivative quotation of Longfellow?


Jus' Sayin'... , says: August 4, 2020 at 3:03 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

If a primary principle, supposedly justifying the Nuremburg Trials, that initiating wars of aggression is a criminal act against humanity, then the Clintons, Bush II, Albright, essentially all the USA's senior foreign policy and military bureaucrats over the last thirty years, and all the Zionist/neocons urging them on and aiding and abetting their criminal acts, would end their lives in Spandau Prison or dangling at the end of a rope.

Jus' Sayin'... , says: August 4, 2020 at 3:32 pm GMT
@A123 ons">

In the following years I've been shocked again and again to observe Trump's ignorance of government and politics and, even more disturbing, his apparent unwillingness to recover and learn from his mistakes. I'm not sure whether this is due to stupidity, laziness, or sociopathic levels of grandiosity. Whatever the cause, the result has been an inability on the part of Trump to fill many campaign promises. (A less sympathetic interpretation of events might be that Trump's campaign promises were deliberate lies.)

Taras77 , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:26 pm GMT
@Majority of One

The woman is a psychopathic monster!

RoatanBill , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:29 pm GMT
@A123 ng out of the country. The Chinese were eager to comply to get access to the processes involved. The Chinese didn't have to steal anything, as the US corporations voluntarily gave them the tech as part of the deal to be in China. The reason to move out of the US is due to the high labor rate and regulations costs. Those costs are high because the Fed Gov that you apparently like is sucking the life out of the population with high taxes, an oversize and out of control military and intelligence services, a financial sector that repeatedly rapes the country and gets away with it, etc, etc, etc.

Keep voting. It shows you're well programmed.

BL , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:30 pm GMT
@A123 a rel="nofollow" href="">

In other words, the Democrats and their Allied Media's malefactions against Trump forestalled them suffering what Republicans did post-Watergate in the House and Senate midterms in 1974, but all of that negative energy didn't go away.

Either they will get their comeuppance in 2020, or it will remain and grow, biting them in ass soon enough.

We Americans are kinda attached to our constitutional republic thingie, including our right to choose the POTUS.

Taras77 , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:38 pm GMT

It really is stunning that the dimo crats have learned nothing from their decades of disaster after disaster after disaster!

From regime change to financial debacles to the looting of the break up of the Soviet Union: the cretins are now once again being trotted out as part of the biden farcial "campaign."

A case in point is the odious Larry Summers: This article goes far in summarizing this pending disaster with the prominent placement of summers:

Majority of One , says: August 4, 2020 at 4:52 pm GMT
@Joe Levantine could be behind the lines calling the shots) and the other, representing the Marianas Trench of the Deep $tate (CIA) and also the Rushdoony loonies of the Dispensationalist "Great Rupture" Christian-Zionist ambulatory oxymorons are THEIR reeking heinies.

Trump is merely a girlie-lusting ram compared with those two prowling lobos, sporting images of blood in their eyes and hatred in their hearts. Suburban soccer-moms detest the Dumpster, mainly because he exacerbates their emotional radar-screens. They totally overlook the deep danger lurking beneath the surface in the likes of Bolton and Pomposity, because they are adroit at masking their totally psychopathic sociopathy.

Curmudgeon , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:09 pm GMT

No men allowed and a Hollywood actress who is regarded as somewhat odd? Right.

Almost 40 years ago my late aunt (in her mid 70s) opined that more women leaders were needed to stop all of the wars. I asked her if she thought Golda Meir, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and Margaret Thatcher were really women, and if so, how were they any different than the men?

ChuckOrloski , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:13 pm GMT

Dear Friends,

In a Foreword to Christopher Bollyn's book, "The War on Terror; The Plot to Rule the Middle East," USMC vet, Alan Sabrosky wrote:
"The book provides a way for even informed readers to better appreciate the origins, evolution, and extent to which Israel has driven a process by which the United States and other countries have systematically destroyed Israel's enemies, at no cost to itself. As we have torn up or assailed a long list of countries -- only Iran has not yet been openly attacked."

A less known fact is how the US is undergoing systematic Israel attack, and I suggest that the best outcome is our being "Balkanized," as described by vagabond, Linh Dinh, who now describes the resilient life in Serbia.

The Process continues even if Trumpstein does or does not consent to leave the Blue & White House.
Thank you, Friends.

Franz , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:15 pm GMT
@W. Baker 90s.

The Cato article in May on her "new book" gives her the right treatment. Even if you are a long way from libertarian, well worth a read. The first paragraph:

"Madeleine Albright is back with a new book to sell. Interviewed in by the New York Times magazine, she reminds us how she continues to live in the past. Unfortunately, that's what made her advice as UN ambassador and secretary of state so uniformly bad."

Majority of One , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:25 pm GMT
@BL culate faceman which the shotcallers running the Deep $tate tend to prefer as their podium images.

The failure of the Wicked Witch of the West to achieve her 2017 coronation was a total shock to the system for the DNC, FBI, CIA, Chew Pork Slymes and other major institutional minions for the ruling plutocratic oligarchy. Even before Trump's Inauguration, they set out to destroy his presidency. After all, it had been decreed from on high that our ruptured republic would be blessed by our first female (more or less) chief executive and that she would be totally on-message and not some small (d) Democrat the likes of Tulsi Gabbard–an irrepressible anti-imperialist.

Alden , says: August 4, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT

Great post, absolutely right.

President issues executive order at 4 PM. Liberals electronically file for a court order at 5 PM. 8AM next day some judge, county, state or federal, issues an injunction forbidding carrying out the executive order. The executive order is tied up in the courts for months.

Last President to successfully defy the courts was Lincoln. The judiciary overturns laws passed by legislators and referendums. The judiciary's orders create new laws.

That's the system

Rurik , says: August 4, 2020 at 6:28 pm GMT
@Ray Caruso who looks cross eyed at terrorist states Israel or Saudi Arabia , it takes some pretty rancid balls to call those defending their nations from an illegal aggressor, 'terrorists'.

What, if not massive and collective terror, is the murder by drone of villagers and leaders? When their children look at the sky, they don't see wonder and beauty, but terror of an arbitrary death.

The only thing we Americans should be feeling these days, is an excruciating shame for the mass-murder and nation destructions our government has perpetrated in our name.

'The exceptional people'. If only we understood just how true that is.

anon [216] Disclaimer , says: August 4, 2020 at 8:26 pm GMT

Dr. Phil is sound on this issue. Democrat nomenklatura must impute some cultic authority to the quivering rhytides of their living-dead mummies.

A gerontocracy is the appropriate government for this degenerate state. The interview excerpt is priceless with Albright's senile brain fart: "let's hire Angelina Jolie, she made an amazing movie!" about how those crispies fucked the Balkans up for shits & grins. You can just see her masticating bon-bons in her slow-motion catapult chair, watching the genocide she caused like it's Star Wars, feeling transient stirrings in her crepey loins at the more romantic rape scenes. Just give that rank old downer cow the bolt gun.

One cavil on the rhetorical devices of the piece: even in jest it makes no sense to suggest ideas to Vegetable-in-Chief Joe Biden. CIA is going to hook him up to a teleprompter or some brain electrodes or whatever and make him talk and nod and gesture like audio-animatronic Lincoln at Disneyland. He's gonna say we have to blow shit up. And MBNA needs privatized debtors' prisons. It's pointless to offer friendly advice to the captive parties of this failed state. It's like telling NAMBLA they should fuck adults. Wipe out this roach motel of a party. The Greens have signed on to BAP's demilitarization pledge. Or write in your Grammy's moldering corpse. Or that big wet floater dump you took this morning. Fuck the USA and its fake democracy.

turtle , says: August 4, 2020 at 8:33 pm GMT

Trump's now inevitable second term

Dream about a world so fine,
Sweet as apple-berry wine.
Dream on .

Timur The Lame , says: August 4, 2020 at 8:34 pm GMT

OK, now to be serious. This article and most of the responses to it thus far, however erudite and with good intention seem to have fallen into a trap before they realized it was a trap namely that everything depends on the result of Dems vs Repubs version 2020. Will Mr. Giraldi write an article to show how it makes even in the slightest way a difference who is the President at this late stage ( or any stage) of decay in the US? I know he knows better to especially on this site. So has he really shed his roots?

I have recently entered into cash bets with almost all of my friends of all dispositions and mental acuity on the prospect of Trump being re-elected. They think that I am crazy. I may be but not on this topic. They are all infected with a mental disease called "normiesm". It is immensely frustrating for me to put any kind of 'out of the box' thinking into conversations regarding Trump because they react like women going through hormonal flushes. All verbal reactions seemingly in lockstep.

So with the monetary challenges shoved in their faces they all seemed to pause briefly to wonder if it was decent to take money from a fool such as I. After a few profanities and insults as to their inter-cranial pressure from me they gladly accepted to a one and some doubled down.

Taking their money, as I will, is the only way that they can be brought to bear to hear me out about my logic. Funny, but it always seems to come down to money.

Now lookie here. What have we had since the Trump inauguration? Four years of 24/7/365 vilification, right versus left, grabbing P ***** , Putin, Stormy Daniels, impeachment (a 24 hour respite when he sent 77 missiles into Syria) and then back to 24/7 of Trump foibles.

Do you see what is/was happening? TDS was the precursor of Covid. And like a charm it worked and still works. Divide and conquer, bread and circuses rolled onto one tasty bagel. Look around you. Would you recognize main-street 4 months ago? I would not. Why would the PTB want to remove Trump? He is a major cog in their satanic wheel whether he knows it or not.

So with the powerful combination of TDS, COVID, BLM and antifa backed by MSM effectively scaring the normies from even uttering a peep , I would say that things are going swimmingly in some power's interests.

Mr Giraldi, "New Dummies, Same Ventriloquist" should be your next article for the sake of your own credibility not digging up another corpse (living or not) like that of of Madeleine Halfbright.


A123 , says: August 4, 2020 at 8:35 pm GMT

You're a hopium addict,

Your use of the ad hominem 'hopium addict' slur shows your frustration. You can't come up with an actual retort, so you lash out.

I notice that you intentionally came out against me personally, because you are unable to defeat my ideas. Your sad & pathetic attempt to paint you submission to Biden as a virtue has failed. And, your personal attacks are simply shameless.


turtle , says: August 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm GMT

starving and incinerating 500,000 or so Iraqi children.

No word on what she might have thought had she heard of the demise of 5000 (1% of 500,000) Jewish children.
But I'll bet I can guess

Majority of One , says: August 4, 2020 at 10:03 pm GMT
@Alden ferson's administration. But as Leo the Lip Durocher insisted, "nice guys finish last."

Jefferson should have had his fellow Virginian arrested and imprisoned for overstepping his constitutional powers. Didn't happen. Marshall (the darling of the Kavanaugh-cloned Federalist Society of statist lawyers) had set a bad precedent, much to the dismay of the president and all freedom-loving elements of WE THE PEOPLE. The very root concept of small (r) republicanism, that of popular sovereignty ,was promptly derailed by that closet monarchist.

Well, at least his fellow Federalist (and London bankster tool) Alexander Hamilton got his just desserts.

Hegar , says: August 4, 2020 at 10:52 pm GMT

Simultaneously, the U.S. enabled the election as Russian president of the hapless drunk Boris Yeltsin, who, guided by advisers sent by the White House, oversaw the western looting of his country's natural resources.

False. But Giraldi knows most readers won't know the truth. It wasn't "western looting," it was looting by a group inside Russia, "the oligarchs". Eight out of the twelve were Jews, among them the top oligarch, Berezovsky.

Philip Giraldi also doesn't mention that Madeleine Albright is a Jew. It's as if her lust for war springs from being pro-American to a fault. Right? Except it's all about destroying Israel's targets, the few Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations that support the Palestinians. And Russia, for giving some support to pro-Palestinian Iran and Syria. The Israeli Lobby always gets what it wants.

Both in Russia and in the Middle East it's about race, not "the West". Of course, ask a communist like "Eric Striker" who writes for Unz Review, and he'll do everything he can to make you believe it's "the Right," "capitalists," "the West" who are behind it all, while conveniently forgetting the Left's domination of media, universities and politics. The lies flow freely.

snag , says: August 5, 2020 at 2:40 am GMT

Bi*ch had the audacity to visit that place and show her face to these people.

anon [161] Disclaimer , says: August 5, 2020 at 2:40 am GMT

'Steal of the Century' (Part 2), filmed in occupied #Palestine is now out! (The first part is being censored on Youtube.) Find out what Donald Trump's plan has paved the way for and what's happening right now in Palestine. •Premiered Aug 2, 2020

'Steal Of The Century': Trump's Palestine-Israel Catastrophe (Documentary) | Episode 2/2

[Aug 02, 2020] The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White House."

Aug 02, 2020 |

Peter AU1 , Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2

I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White House."

Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto it and getting an American company involved.

Delta Crescent Energy. Formed beginning of 2019 and nothing else on it. I guess Trump and a few mates divvying up the spoils.

Laguerre , Aug 2 2020 15:00 utc | 6

The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White House."

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2

Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.

[Aug 02, 2020] The USA military establishment are the masters of the deception game: the right to combat the internal enemy it is the right to instll puppet regime which will exterminate social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment, and who are assumed to be communist extremists

Aug 02, 2020 |

Maracatu , Aug 2 2020 15:01 utc | 7

How a US military doctrine became Colombia's 'origin of evil' | Part 1: "Popeye" :
What is known in Latin America as the National Security Doctrine [is] not defense against an external enemy, but a way to make the military establishment the masters of the game [with] the right to combat the internal enemy : it is the right to fight and to exterminate social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment, and who are assumed to be communist extremists. And this could mean anyone, including human rights activists such as myself.

Colombia's former Foreign Minister Alfredo Vasquez

[Aug 02, 2020] Modern jihadism was co-invented in 1979 by Saudi Prince

Aug 02, 2020 |

LuBa , Aug 1 2020 7:13 utc | 77

"Modern jihadism was co-invented in 1979 by Saudi Prince"

Yes after the Mecca siege they found the potential of wahabi islam(redefined by Qutb teachings in the previous years) to be used against the enemy of zionism.Without 20 November 1979 (not in Teheran but in Mecca) there wouldn't have been any suicide bomber in the years after.Those men with long beards and strong motivations were a great threat to the saudi family..they had no fear to die for their struggle because the struggle was all their life...They had a genuine hatred for usa and saudi corrupted state.It was only a matter of annihilating them internally and at the same time promoting their birth everywhere in the Sunni Islamic serve the zionist scum.

[Aug 01, 2020] Executed Turkish general exposed misuse of Qatari funds for Syria extremists- Report - Al Arabiya English

Highly recommended!
Aug 01, 2020 |

Executed Turkish general exposed misuse of Qatari funds for Syria extremists: Report Semih Terzi, a general within the Turkish army, was executed on the night of the 2016 Turkish coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (Photo via the stockholmcf) Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya English Friday 31 July 2020 Text size A A A

me title=

The Turkish army executed a senior general within its ranks after he had discovered the embezzlement of illicit Qatari funding for extremists in Syria by public officials, according to a 2019 court testimony unveiled in a report by the Nordic Monitor.

Semih Terzi, a general within the Turkish army, was executed on the night of the 2016 Turkish coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.

The new allegations unveiled in court testimonies from a hearing March 20, 2019at Ankara 17th High Criminal Court were made by Col. Fırat Alakuş, an army officer working within Turkey's Special Forces Command's intelligence section.

According to the Nordic Monitor, Terzi is said to have been executed after discovering that Lt. Gen. Zekai Aksakallı, in charge of the Special Forces Command at the time, was working covertly with Turkey's National Intelligence Organization (MIT) "in running illegal and clandestine operations in Syria for personal gain while dragging Turkey deeper into the Syrian civil war."

Read more:

Qatar, Turkey, Muslim Brotherhood leading campaign to 'vilify' UAE: Gargash

Turkey leans on Qatar for $15 billion deal as economy stutters amid coronavirus

Syrian refugees file law suit against Qatar's Doha Bank for terror funding

"[Terzi] knew how much of the funding delivered [to Turkey] by Qatar for the purpose of purchasing weapons and ammunition for the opposition was actually used for that and how much of it was actually used by public officials, how much was embezzled," Col. Alakuş was quoted as saying by the Nordic Monitor via his court testimony.

The Nordic Monitor said in its report published on Friday that Alakuş testified that Aksakallı had run a gang outside of the chain of command within the Turkish intelligence that was involved in illicit activities.

The report further alleged that Terzi was aware of public officials involved in oil-smuggling operations with ISIS from Syria.

"[Terzi] was aware of who in the government was involved in an oil-smuggling operation from Syria, how the profits were shared, and what activities they were involved in," Alakuş said in his testimony.

[Jul 30, 2020] Financial capitalism is bloodthirstily by definition as it needs new markets. It fuels wars.

Jul 29, 2020 |

steven t johnson 07.29.20 at 3:14 pm (50 )

PS likbez@46 reminded me of a line from the movie Reds. Warren Beatty's John Reed spoke of people who "though Karl Marx wrote a good antitrust law." This was not a favorable comment. The confusion of socialism and what might be called populism is quite, quite old. Jack London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War that the normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the middle class paradise of equal competition. It wasn't conspiracies.

likbez 07.29.20 at 3:30 pm

@steven t johnson 07.29.20 at 3:14 pm (51)

Jack London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War that the normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the middle class paradise of equal competition.

I think the size of the USA military budget by itself means the doom for the middle class, even without referring to famous Jack London book (The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.).

Wall Street and MIC (especially intelligence agencies ; Allen Dulles was a Wall Street lawyer) are joined at the hip. And they both fully control MSM. As Jack London aptly said:

"The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it."
― Jack London, The Iron Heel

Financial capitalism is bloodthirstily by definition as it needs new markets. It fuels wars. In a sense, Bolton is the symbol of financial capitalism foreign policy.

It is important to understand that finance capitalism creates positive feedback loop in the economy increasing instability of the system. So bubbles are immanent feature of finance capitalism, not some exception or the result of excessive greed.

[Jul 29, 2020] How Modern Jihadism Became Co-Invented by the U.S. and Saudi Governments -- Strategic Culture

Jul 29, 2020 |

Modern jihadism was co-invented in 1979 by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, and U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, working together, and here is the background for it, and the way -- and the reasons -- that it was done:

Back in the later Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church and its aristocracies had used religious fervor in order to motivate very conservative and devout people to invade foreign countries so as to spread their empire and to not need to rely only on taxes in order to fund these invasions, but also to highly motivate them by their faith in a heavenly reward. It was far cheaper this way, because these invading forces wouldn't need to be paid so much; the reason why they'd be far cheaper is that their pay would chiefly come to them in their afterlife (if at all). That's why people of strong faith were used. (Aristocracies always rule by deceiving the public, and faith is the way.) Those invaders were Roman Catholic Crusaders, and they went out on Crusades to spread their faith and so 'converted' and slaughtered millions of Muslims and Jews, so as to expand actually the aristocracies' and preachers' empire, which is the reason why they had been sent out on those missions (to win 'converts'). This was charity, after all. (Today's large tax-exempt non-profits are no different -- consistently promoting their aristocracy's invasions, out of 'humanitarian' concern for the 'welfare', or else 'souls', of the people they are invading -- and, if need be, to kill 'bad people'. This has been the reality. And it still is. It's the way to sell imperialism to individuals who won't benefit from imperialism -- make mental slaves of them.)

The original Islamic version of the Christian Crusades, Islamic Holy War or "jihad," started on 14 November 1914 in Constantinople (today's Istanbul) when the Sheikh Hayri Bey, the supreme religious authority in the Ottoman Empire , along with the Ottoman Emperor, Mehmed V , declared a Holy War for their Muslim followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War I. They were on Germany's side, and lost. (That's the reason why the Ottoman Empire ended.) Both the Sheikh and the Emperor had actually been selected -- and then forced -- by Turkey's aristocracy, for them to declare Islamic Holy War at that time. In fact, the sitting Sheikh, Mehmet Cemaleddin Efendi , in 1913, was actually an opponent of the pro-German and war-oriented policy of the Union and Progress Party, which represented Turkey's aristocrats, and so that Sheikh was replaced by them, in order to enable a declaration of Islamic Holy War. Jihad actually had its origin in Turkey's aristocracy -- not in the Muslim masses, and not even in the Muslim clergy. It resulted from an overly ambitious Turkish aristocracy, hoping to extend their empire. It did not result from the public. And, at that time, relatively few Muslims followed this 'Holy' command, which is one reason why the Ottoman Empire soon thereafter ended.

Incidentally, so as to clarify how Turkey's aristocracy ran the show, at that time, Taner Akçam's September 2006 "The Ottoman Documents and the Genocidal Policies of the Committee for Union and Progress toward the Armenians in 1915" reported that:

The fact that the decision about the Armenians was made after a great deal of thought, based on extensive debate and discussion by the Central Committee of the CUP [Committee for Union and Progress] , can be understood by looking at other sources of information as well. The indictment of the Main Trial states as follows: ''The murder and annihilation of the Armenians was a decision taken by the Central Committee of the Union and Progress Party.'' These decisions were the result of ''long and extensive discussions.'' In the indictment are the statements of Dr. Nazım to the effect that ''it was a matter taken by the Central Committee after thinking through all sides of the issue'' and that it was ''an attempt to reach a final solution to the Eastern Question .'' 54 In his memoirs, which were published in the newspaper Vakit, Celal, the governor of Aleppo, describes the same words being spoken to him by a deputy of the Ottoman Parliament from Konya, coming as a ''greeting of a member of the Central Committee .'' This deputy told Celal that if he had ''expressed an opinion that opposed the point of view of the others, [he would] have been expelled .'' 55

(And, consequently, when Hitler allegedly -- on 22 August 1939 , right before his invasion of Poland which started WW II, and it is on page 2 here , but the sincerity and even the authenticity of that alleged private 'speech' by him should be questioned and not accepted outright by historians -- cited Turkey's genocide against Armenian Christians as being proof that genocide is acceptable, Hitler would actually have been citing there not only a Muslim proponent of genocide, but an ally of Germany who had actually done it, because the Ottoman Empire's aristocracy had been both Muslim and German-allied. Hitler would, in that 'speech', if he actually said it, have been citing that earlier ally of Germany, which had actually genocided Christians. The genocide happened, even if that speech mentioning it was concocted by some propagandist during WW II.)

The new jihad, or Islamic version of the Crusades, is, however, very different from the one that had started on 14 November 1914. It wasn't Turkish, it instead came straight from Turkey's top competitor to lead the world's Muslims, the royal family who owned Saudi Arabia, the Sauds. But they partnered with America's aristocracy, in creating it.

Today's jihadism started in 1979, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (a born Polish nobleman), and his colleague Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, re-created jihad or Islamic Holy War, in order to produce a dirt-cheap army of Pakistani fundamentalist Sunni students or "mujahideen," soon to be renamed Taliban ( Pashto & Persian ṭālibān, plural of ṭālib student, seeker, from Arabic ) so as to invade and conquer next door to the Soviet Union the newly Soviet-allied Afghanistan, and to turn it 'pro-Western', now meaning both anti-Soviet, and anti-Shiite. (The Saud family hate Shiites , and so do America's aristocrats, whose CIA had conquered Shiite Iran in 1953, and who became outraged when Shiites retook Iran in 1979. And, from then on, America's aristocracy, too, have hated Shiites and have craved to re-conquer Iran. By contrast, the Sauds had started in 1744 to hate Shiites.) So, modern Islamic Holy War started amongst fundamentalist Sunnis in Pakistan in 1979, against both the Soviets and the Iranians (and now against both Russia and Iran ). Here is a video of Brzezinski actually doing that -- starting the "mujahideen" (subsequently to become the Taliban) onto this 'Holy War':

Brzezinski , incidentally, had been born a Roman Catholic Polish aristocrat whose parents hated and despised Russians, and this hostility went back to the ancient conflicts between the Roman Catholic and the Russian Orthodox Churches.

So: whereas on the American end this was mainly a Roman Catholic versus Orthodox operation, it was mainly a Sunni versus Shiite operation on the Saudi end.

Here's more of the personal background regarding the co-creation, by the aristocracies of America and of Saudi Arabia, of today's jihadism, or "radical Islamic terrorism":

Whereas Nelson Rockefeller in the Republican Party sponsored Harvard's Henry Kissinger as the geostrategist and National Security Advisor, David Rockefeller in the Democratic Party sponsored Harvard's and then Columbia's Zbigniew Brzezinski as the geostrategist and National Security Advisor. The Rockefeller family was centrally involved in controlling the U.S. Government.

According to pages 41-44 of David B. Ottaway's 2008 The King's Messenger: Prince Bandar , U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose National Security Advisor was Brzezinski, personally requested and received advice from a certain graduate student at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud, regarding geostrategy. At the time, Brzezinski commented favorably on Bandar's graduate thesis. But that's not all. "Secretly, Carter had already turned to the kingdom for help, calling in Bandar and asking him to deliver a message to [King] Fahd pleading for an increase in Saudi [oil] production. Fahd's reply, according to Bandar, was 'Tell my friend, the president of the United States of America, when they need our help, they will not be disappointed.'13 The king was true to his world." However, Bandar's advice went beyond oil. And the re-creation, of the fundamentalist-Sunni movement (amongst only fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, both in 1914 and in 1979), that now is called "jihadism," was a joint idea, from both Brzezinski and Bandar.

On 2 July 2014, Akbar Ganji headlined at Huffington Post, "U.S.-Jihadist Relations (Part 1): Creating the Mujahedin in Afghanistan" , and he noted that :

It was the United States that, together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan, dispatched the jihadists to Afghanistan. Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia played a key role in those operations, with Saudi Arabia providing the key financial, military and human support for them. The kingdom encouraged its citizens to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army. One such citizen was Osama bin Laden. Saudi Arabia agreed to match, dollar for dollar, any funds that the CIA could raise for the operations. The U.S. provided Pakistan with $3.2 billion , and Saudi Arabia bought weapons from everywhere, including international black markets, and sent them to Afghanistan through Pakistan's ISI.

That was then, and this is now, but it is merely an extension of that same operation, even after the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended in 1991, and Russia ended its side of the Cold War but the United States secretly continued its side , as is shown here, by an example. This example, of America's continuing its Cold War, is America's longstanding effort, after the death of FDR in 1945, to overthrow and replace Syria's pro-Russian Government and install instead a Syrian Government that will be controlled by the Sauds:

U.S. President Barack Obama was warned in 2012 by U.S. DOD intelligence that if he would try to overthrow and replace Syria's secular, non-sectarian (and predominantly Shiite) Government (as the Sauds had been urging every U.S. President ever since Truman to do -- to replace those secular Shiites by fundamentalist Sunnis ), he would be able to do it only with the support of Syria's minority of fanatically Sunni fundamentalists , who were especially concentrated in Syria's northwestern province of Idlib, bordering Turkey. Obama went for the idea , and promoted it as being his attempt to 'liberate' Syria, from being led by the "barbaric" secular, non-sectarian, Shiite, Bashar al-Assad. As far back as 2009, Obama had been informed that an intense drought was ripening Syria for overthrow (regime-change), but Obama wanted to wait for his second term before he'd go all-out for this conquest. Obama didn't want his re-election chances to be clouded by possible accusations that he would be arming Al Qaeda. But, anyway, he needed to do it that way because only as late as December 2012 did Syria's domestic jihadists make clear to him that they'd go along with his plan to wage war against Assad only if they would be led by Syria's Al Qaeda, called "Al Nusra." So, this invasion began only in his second term, starting in January 2013. But the planning for the 'rebellion' -- the "Arab Spring" in Syria -- actually began in 2009 , and the U.S. State Department, under Hillary Clinton, was centrally involved . Turkey "began operations in April-May 2011" to overthrow Assad, but Obama had actually started it, Erdogan didn't. Turkey merely cooperated with it. Altogether, throughout the U.S.-initiated war in Syria, something on the order of around a hundred thousand jihadists have come into Syria from around the world so as to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Virtually all of them entered through Turkey, to its north. The influx was a trickle as late as 2013, escalated in 2014, approximately doubled in 2015, and continued escalating , but no reliable count of the incoming jihadists exists. Though Turkey was the pathway, this invasion started actually in Washington.

So, in this new 'Islamic holy war', to overthrow Syria's non-sectarian Government, the fighters entered Syria through Turkey, and they were welcomed mainly in Syria's province of Idlib, which adjoins Turkey.

On 13 March 2012, the Al Jazeera TV station, of the pro-jihad Thani royal family of Qatar, headlined "Inside Idlib: Saving Syria" , and opened

The Syrian government crackdown on the dissenting northern city of Idlib has continued for a third day, with casualties from random shelling and sniper fire mounting, and growing concerns for many citizens detained by government forces. "I can't tell you what an unequal contest this is . The phrase that we felt yesterday applied to it was 'Shooting fish in a barrel' – these people can't escape, they can't help themselves, they have very little weaponry, what can they do but sit there and take it?"

The UK Government had given Qatar to the Thanis in 1868. On 12 September 1868 , Mohammed Bin Thani signed "an agreement with the British Political Resident Col. Lewis Pelly, which was considered as the first international recognition of the sovereignty of Qatar"; so, on that precise day, Britain's Queen Victoria gave Qatar to his family, which owns it, to the present day. The Thanis are the leading financial backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, which spreads Thani influence to foreign countries. (At least up till 9/11, the Saud family have been the main financial backers of Al Qaeda .) The Thanis have been, along with the Sauds, the main financial backers of replacing the non-sectarian Syrian Government by a fundamentalist-Sunni Syrian Government. Whereas the Sauds want to control that new government, also the Thanis do, and this is one reason for the recent falling-out between those two families. America's aristocracy prefers that Syria's rulers will be selected by the Saud family, because they buy more weapons from the U.S. than does any other country. However, everything is transactional between aristocracies, and, so, international alliances can change. It's always a jostling, everyone grabbing for whatever they can get: aristocracies operate no differently than crime-families do, because FDR's dream of an anti-imperialistic U.N., which would set and enforce international laws, died when he did; we live instead in an internationally lawless world -- he died far too soon. In a sense (at least ideologically), Hitler won, but, actually, Churchill did (he was as much an imperialist as Hitler and Mussolini were).

Anyway, uncounted tens of thousands of jihadists from all over the world descended upon Syria, funded by the Sauds and the Thanis, and armed and trained by the United States, to conquer Syria. At the Syrian Government's request, Russia started bombing the jihadists on 30 September 2015 . That air-support for the Syrian Army turned the war around. By the time of 4 May 2018, Britain's Financial Times headlined "Idlib offers uncertain sanctuary to Syria's defeated rebels" ("rebels" being the U.S. and UK Governments' term for jihadists who were serving as the U.S., Saud and Thani, proxy-forces or mercenaries to conquer Syria) and reported (stenographically transmitting what the CIA and MI6 told them to say) that, "more than 70,000 rebels and civilians" -- meaning jihadists and their families -- who were "fleeing the last rebel holdout near the capital," had been given a choice, and this "choice was die in Ghouta, or leave for Idlib," and chose to get onto the Government-supplied buses taking them to Idlib. So, perhaps unnumbered hundreds of thousands of jihadists did that, from all over Syria, and collecting them in Idlib.

As I reported on 10 May 2018:

On May 8th, Syria's Government bannered, "6th batch of terrorists leave southern Damascus for northern Syria" and reported that "During the past five days, 218 buses carrying terrorists with their families exited from the three towns to Jarablos and Idleb under the supervision of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent." Jarablos (or " Jarabulus ") is a town or "District" in the Aleppo Governate; and Idleb (or " Idlib ") is the capital District in the adjoining Governate of Idlib, which Governate is immediately to the west of Aleppo Governate; and both Jarabulus and Idlib border on Turkey to the north. Those two towns in Syria's far northwest are where captured jihadists are now being sent.

The Government is doing that because at this final stage in the 7-year-long war, it wants civilian deaths and additional destruction of buildings to be kept to a minimum, and so is offering jihadists the option of surviving instead of being forced to fight to the death (which would then require Syria's Government to destroy the entire area that's occupied by the terrorists); this way, these final clean-up operations against the terrorists won't necessarily require bombing whole neighborhoods -- surrenders thus become likelier, so as to end the war as soon as possible, and to keep destruction and civilian casualties at a minimum.

The Syrian and Russian Governments had planned to finish them off there in Idlib, so that none of them could escape back into their home countries to continue their jihad. However, the U.S. and its allies raised 'humanitarian' screams at the U.N. and other international organizations, in order to protect the 'rebels' against the 'barbarous dictator' of Syria, its President, Bashar al-Assad -- just in order to create more anti-Assad (and anti-Russian, and anti-Iranian) propaganda. And, so, on 9 and 10 September 2018, Putin and Erdogan and Rouhani met in Rouhani's Tehran to decide what to do. By that time, Erdogan was riding the fence between Washington and Moscow. On 17 September 2018, I headlined "Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ as I Recommended" and reported that Putin and Rouhani entrusted Idlib to Erdogan, with the expectation that Erdogan would keep the jihadists penned-up there, so that Putin and Assad would be able to bomb them to hell after the 'humanitarian crisis' in Idlib would be no longer on front pages.

As things turned out, Erdogan double-crossed Putin and Rouhani, and just grabbed the territory .

The role of the United Nations in this has been to stand aside and pretend that it's a 'humanitarian crisis' (as the U.S. regime wanted it to be called) instead of a U.S.-and-allied invasion, aggressive war, and consequently a vast war-crime such as Hitler's top leaders were prosecuted and executed for at Nuremberg. As Miri Wood wrote, at Syria News, on 28 February 2018 :

Members of the General Assembly must be in good financial standing to vote. Dues are on a sliding scale but do not factor in draconian sanctions against targeted members, nor crimes of war involved in their destruction. As such, CAR, Libya, Venezuela and Yemen have been stripped of their voting rights. The non-permanent SC members function as obedient House Servants to the P3 bullies, ever mindful of placing self-preservation above moral integrity .

So Truman's U.N. turns out to be on the side of the new Nazism, against its victims.

Erdogan wants to be with the winners. He evidently believes that whatever empire he'll be able to have will be just a vassal nation within the U.S. Empire. He had been extremely reluctant to accept this viewpoint , but, apparently, he now does. And so, now, Erdogan has become so confident that he has the backing of Christian-majority America and of Christian-majority Europe, so that Turkey's Hagia Sophia , which had been "the world's largest cathedral for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520," has finally become officially declared by the Turkish Government to be, instead, a mosque. He feels safe enough to insult the publics in the other NATO countries so as to be able now to assert publicly his support for Islam against Christianity, because he knows that NATO's other aristocracies -- all of them majority-Christian, and all of these aristocrats ruling their respective Christian-majority countries -- don't really give a damn about that. Amongst themselves, the concern for 'heaven' is all just for show, because they are far more interested to buy Paradise in the here-and-now, for themselves and for their families. As for any possible 'afterlife', it will be reflected in the big buildings and charities that will bear their names, after they're gone. Erdogan feels safe, knowing that they're all psychopaths. And, as for the publics anywhere -- Syria, Libya, even in Turkey itself -- they don't matter, to him, any more than they do to the leaders of those other NATO countries.

Consequently, too, on July 18th, the American Herald Tribune headlined "As It Did in Libya, Turkey Recruits Syrian Militants to Fight in Azerbaijan" , and Khaled Iskef, a journalist for Beirut's Almaydeen TV, reported, based on unnamed "private sources in the northern countryside of Aleppo," that

Turkish forces started recruiting numbers of its armed fighters to send them to Azerbaijan in order to assist the Azerbaijani forces in confronting the Armenian army.

According to sources, Turkey opened special promotion offices in different parts of Afrin northern Aleppo, to attract the militants and encourage them to sign contracts by which they would move to fight in Azerbaijan for a period of six months, renewable in case they wanted to.

According to the contract, the militants receive a monthly salary of $2500, while the advantage of granting Turkish citizenship to the families of the militants in case they died is absent, contrary to the contracts that Turkey had signed with the armed men who wanted to move to Libya.

The sources said that Turkey has designated centers for registering militants wishing to fight in Azerbaijan within the towns of Genderes and Raju, along with Afrin city, and these centers have already started receiving requests by the militants.

Armenia is virtually 100% Christian, and, according to Wikipedia :

The Armenian Genocide [c] (also known as the Armenian Holocaust ) [13] was the systematic mass murder and expulsion of 1.5 million [b] ethnic Armenians carried out in Turkey and adjoining regions by the Ottoman government between 1914 and 1923. [14] [15] The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported from Constantinople (now Istanbul) to the region of Angora ( Ankara ), 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders , the majority of whom were eventually murdered.

So, the recruitment of fundamentalist-Sunni mercenaries in the areas of Syria that Turkey has captured, and sending those men "to assist the Azerbaijani forces in confronting the Armenian army," is likewise consistent with the NATO member-country Turkey's restoration of its former Ottoman Empire. Using these jihadist proxy-soldiers, NATO is now invading Christian Armenia.

However, Iskef was reporting without paying any attention to the aristocratic interests which were actually very much involved in what Erdogan was doing here. On July 19th, Cyril Widdershoven at the "Oil Price" site bannered "The Forgotten Conflict That Is Threatening Energy Markets" and he reported the economic geostrategic factors which were at stake in this now-emerging likely hot war, which is yet another "pipeline war," and which pits Turkey against Russia. In this particular matter, Turkey has an authentic economic reason to become engaged in a possible hot war allied with Muslim Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia. Russia, yet again, would be backing Christian soldiers. Of course, NATO, also yet again, would be on the Muslim side, against the Christians. But, this time, NATO would be backing Azerbaijan, which is 85% Shiite. Consequently, in such a conflict, the U.S. could end up on the same side as Iran, and against Russia.

If history is any guide, aristocratic interests will take precedence over theocratic interests, but democratic interests -- the interests of the publics that are involved -- will be entirely ignored. The sheer hypocrisy of the U.S. regime exceeds anything in human history.

How can anybody not loathe the U.S. regime and its allies? Only by getting one's 'news' from its 'news'-media -- especially (but not only) its mainstream ones.

[Jul 26, 2020] As Congress Blocks Defunding the Pentagon, Here Are Ten Things We Could Have Spent the Money On

Jul 26, 2020 |

July 22nd, 2020

By Alan Macleod

9 Comments Facebook Twitter Reddit Email More 64

T he majority of House Democrats joined with the Republican colleagues yesterday in voting down progressive legislation that would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent ($74 billion) and used the money to fund healthcare, housing, and education for the poorest Americans.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Barbara Lee (D–CA) and Mark Pocan (D–WI) was soundly defeated 93-324 , with 139 Democrats joining all 185 voting Republicans in rejecting the idea. Despite the defeat, Pocan vowed to continue pushing an anti-war agenda. "We will keep fighting for pro-peace, pro-people budgets until it becomes a reality," he said . Democrats who voted against the military budget cuts received over three times the contributions from the defense industry as those who voted for the reduction. Earlier today, the Senate also voted down the proposal.

The result will no doubt disappoint the majority of Americans as well. A poll conducted last week by Data for Progress found that 56 percent of the country supported the idea to defund the military and use the money to fight COVID-19 alleviate the growing housing crisis. Democrat-voters supported the plan by 69 to 19 percent, with Republicans also backing it, by 50 to 37 percent. The proposal is hardly a radical shift; the military's budget has increased by around 20 percent under President Trump alone, reaching near-historic highs.

The National Priorities Project, a part of the Institute for Policy Studies think tank, put together a list of ten better uses for the $74 billion than giving it to one of the world's largest bureaucracies. This included:

  1. Housing every one of the United States' over half a million homeless people.
  2. Creating more than one million infrastructure jobs across America, especially in many of the most economically depressed locations.
  3. Conduct two billion COVID-19 tests, or six tests per person (44 times as many as has already been done).
  4. Easily close the $23 billion funding gap between majority-white and majority non-white public schools.
  5. Fund free college programs for more than two million of the poorest American students.
  6. A revolution in clean energy. $74 billion could create enough solar and/or wind energy to meet the needs of virtually every American household.
  7. One million well-paid clean energy jobs, enough to transition most dirty industry workers into renewables.
  8. Hire 900,000 new elementary school teachers, or nine per school, creating a golden age of education.
  9. Send a $2,300 check to the more than 32 million currently unemployed people across the country.
  10. Purchase enough N95 masks for all 55 million essential workers to use, one per day, every day for a year, with change to spare.

Ashik Siddique of the National Priorities Project told MintPress that he was disappointed with the results, but that he was hopeful for the future:

It's important to note how quickly the political landscape is shifting around this issue. This is the first time in decades that Congress has seriously considered reinvesting away from Pentagon spending. Just a few years ago, it would have been hard to imagine getting even 93 votes in the House and 23 in the Senate -- or nearly 40 to 50 percent of the Democratic Caucus -- to cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent, as they did this time.

That sets up a much stronger baseline to work from next year -- especially since the budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will expire, giving Americans the chance to more deeply transform this country's militarized agenda in a way that has not been on the table for decades."

Siddique's figures demonstrate just how much money is spent on war and what could be possible in the United States if there was a paradigm shift away from bloated military spending. The U.S. military budget is by far the largest in the world, rivaling that of all other countries combined. More than half of all discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon, with the U.S. spending far more per capita on weaponry than comparable countries. Yet even the $740 billion defense bill does not tell the full story, as it does not include the costs of nuclear weapons (borne by the Department of Energy), nor many veterans' pensions.

In February the Pentagon announced its fiscal year 2021 budget request, in which it signaled a move away from the Middle East as its primary focus, towards that of Russia and China. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared the Asian Pacific region to be the U.S.' new "priority theater." There appears to be no partisan split in foreign policy, with both Democrats and Republicans viewing China as an increasing nemesis. In recent weeks Donald Trump and Joe Biden have accused each other of being in Beijing's pockets while ratcheting up the tensions with the world's most populous country.

Like with the cut to military spending, however, the political elite's opinion varies radically with that of the general public. When polling group Pew asked what was the number one international threat to America, the spread of infectious disease was by some way the top answer. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has been cutting health budgets, including attempting to slash funding for the Center for Disease control. Internationally, he has also committed the U.S. to leaving the World Health Organization, a move that is sure to wreak havoc internationally and undermine cooperation against future worldwide health threats.

Feature photo | President Donald Trump, right, looks over a helicopter with United States Military Academy Lt. Gen. Darryl Williams, prior to a commencement ceremony on the parade field, at the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., June 13, 2020. Alex Brandon | AP

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent . He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary . Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

[Jul 26, 2020] Takes much more bravery to go against the dumbass belligerent society you are unfortunately born into

Jul 26, 2020 |

obwandiyag , says: July 23, 2020 at 11:44 pm GMT

@Wade onal murderers, do ya?

You're right about the rich eating our lunch.

But you're wrong about Marines. They kill people for a living. Innocent people. Like Iraqis. And Afghans. Anyone who thinks that murdering Iraqis and Afghans, who never did nothing to Americans, nor Vietnamese, who also did nothing to Americans, or, as Cassius Clay said, "I ain't got nothing against no Vietcong." And he didn't. Because he was an American. So, I thank the service of conscientious objectors, draft dodgers, and deserters. They are the real heroes. Takes much more bravery to go against the dumbass belligerent society you are unfortunately born into. Oh, fuck it, you'll never understand.

Wade , says: July 24, 2020 at 2:24 pm GMT
@obwandiyag ompletely object to our whole response to 911 as it was indeed a false flag.

If so many people were so easily fooled in the US by our "American Pravda" including myself, how can I hold it against an 18 year old or some other kid who hasn't even gone to college that he too cannot see through the dense haze of lies bellowed by those who rule over us? So yes, I admire their bravery but I want desperately for the US military to withdraw from the Middle East (and most everywhere else) and return home to protect us and only us from any real invasion should it ever occur.

We need a) a good military and b) honest leadership. We have the former but not the latter.

[Jul 26, 2020] Patriotic Dissent- How A Working-Class Soldier Turned Against -Forever Wars- -

Jul 26, 2020 |

Patriotic Dissent: How A Working-Class Soldier Turned Against "Forever Wars"

by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/25/2020 - 00:05 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Steve Early and Suzanne Gordon via,

When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."

In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."

In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes , "endless wars persist (and in some cases have even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like 140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to increase astronomically ."

me title=

When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee just voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.

An Appeal to Conscience

Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a 37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)

Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II, Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post 9/11 wars have been.

Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island. Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls "deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."



me title=

Sjursen's initial experience in combat -- vividly described in his first book, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of The Surge (University Press of New England) -- "occurred at the statistical height of sectarian strife" in Iraq.

"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life," Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .

When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he "knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected, undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."

A Professional Soldier

By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."

He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded, including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."

Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform, in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.

Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.

Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.

In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.

One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."



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

Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."

Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to "reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of "an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran community."

Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.

But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:

"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance themselves from its reality ."

At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that, Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it will inspire many others, in uniform and out.

me name=

Justus_Americans , 59 minutes ago

Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?

Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago

I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the hands of our friends.

dogbert8 , 1 hour ago

War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.

TheLastMan , 2 hours ago

If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it serves

Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago

I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.

I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author presents.

We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.

We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of our overseas installations and bases.

We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.

Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true enemy.

Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?

Max21c , 1 hour ago

We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.

I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k economic sanctions by Washington...

But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute right or power

IronForge , 2 hours ago

Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the General's Descendants Served in the US Military.

Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.

The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional Republic.

PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the Globe.

Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite, Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.

YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above such Competitive Existenstential Threats.


The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences; and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal Collapses Within.

Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.

Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to Emigration and/or Secession.

Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago

Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.

Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.

gzorp , 2 hours ago

Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the "History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....

A DUDE , 2 hours ago

t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.

So why would anyone vote is my question? 11. Trump and Biden Are Far Right of Center and Running to Offenbach Nearly Every Day

sbin , 2 hours ago

Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.

Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.

Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery sealed her fate.

BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago

In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes , "endless wars persist (and in some cases have even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like 140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to increase astronomically ."

Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.

An Appeal to Conscience

Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face continuing bi-partisan resistance.

November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is a nonstarter from the get go.

Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president."

I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.

Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several left-leaning comrades ...

Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit somehow.

Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."

"On July 28, 1932, at the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, they marched down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol to launch an attack on World War I veterans. "

Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it."

That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are worshipped as gods.

Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.

The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the capitalism of death.

The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance, they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.

Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?

One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class KNOWS IT!

Amendment X , 2 hours ago

And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.

11b40 , 1 hour ago

Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.

Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.

Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In 1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and we are still there.

I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.

Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago

Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want American democracy?", LMFAO

Max21c , 2 hours ago

Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."

The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships, battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington morons.

Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.

Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago

Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the perimeter." Who needs AI?

Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump fumble?

ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago

Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient military and police force.

Max21c , 3 hours ago

It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.

nonkjo , 4 hours ago

It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.

Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet "resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go to grad school).

The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist hypoctite.

Max21c , 4 hours ago

...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial wave ..."

Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.

Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to boot.

Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday each month...

Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing. They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's 1984.

Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and solutions.

In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's future.

In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians & elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace & diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad behavior.

Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago

For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...


Remind 0range $hit $tain ( ) that if he makes this a campaign pledge and an issue for debate he maybe can avoid a war crimes tribunal given how much has already been spent on the war machine ( )!

Hatterasjohn , 4 hours ago

Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it " ? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968. When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh ! Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it. Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda , Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war. Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.

No-Go zone , 5 hours ago

cowboyted , 7 hours ago

A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war, they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen. Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.

cowboyted , 7 hours ago

The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.

captain noob , 7 hours ago

Capitalism has no morals

Profit is the driving force of every single thing

cowboyted , 7 hours ago

The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.

Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago

After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????

cowboyted , 8 hours ago

The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S., spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.

transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago

I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various reasons.

1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.

2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than 20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.

3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another. There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.

4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.

Tortuga , 8 hours ago

So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo ron.

HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago

Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).

messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago

From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens, knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that might be.

bh2 , 8 hours ago

The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.

NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.

China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map. Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect of either winning or leaving.

Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.

While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming), China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be the final straw.)

FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on all sides.

While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and political donors don't care as long as it pays well.

Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.

The Judge , 8 hours ago

US. is the real threat to US interests.

DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago

An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con propaganda.

Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started agitating against the PRC.

FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.

Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.

Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago

"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at sea.

TheLastMan , 4 hours ago

What constitutes "America's interests"?

the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp chamber of commerce

Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?

next ?, who owns / controls corporations?

Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago

There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military. They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.

847328_3527 , 9 hours ago

Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.

[Jul 23, 2020] Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination

Jul 23, 2020 |

News / Politics Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM [ Last Update: Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM ]

Members of the Iraqi honor guard walk past a huge portrait of Iran's late top general Qassem Soleimani (L) and Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport last month, during a memorial service held in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone on February 11, 2020. (Photo by AFP)

Iran's top security official says harsher revenge awaits the perpetrators of the attack that killed senior Iranian anti-terrorism commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and his companions.

In a post on his Twitter page on Wednesday, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said that US President Donald Trump had admitted that the American, upon his direct order, committed the crime of assassinating General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) counter-terrorism force, who were two prominent figures of the anti-terrorism campaign.

"The two Iranian and Iraqi nations are avengers of blood of these martyrs and will not rest until they punish the perpetrators," read part of the tweet.

"Harsher revenge is one the way," it concluded.

The two commanders and a number of their companions were assassinated in a US airstrike near Baghdad airport on January 3, as General Soleimani was on an official visit to the Iraqi capital.

Both commanders were extremely popular because of the key role they played in eliminating the US-sponsored Daesh terrorist group in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.

UN experts calls US drone attack on Gen. Soleimani 'unlawful' killing A senior UN human rights investigator says the United States' assassination of top Iranian commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad was an "unlawful" killing in violation of the international law.

In retaliation for the attack, the IRGC fired volleys of ballistic missiles a US base in Iraq on January 8. According to the US Defense Department, more than 100 American forces suffered "traumatic brain injuries" during the counterstrike. The IRGC, however, says Washington uses the term to mask the number of the Americans, who perished during the retaliation.

Iran has also issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining Trump, who ordered the assassination, and several other US military and political leaders behind the strike.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday Iran will never forget Washington's assassination of General Soleimani and will definitely deliver a "counterblow" to the United States.

Leader: Iran to deal US 'counterblow' for Gen. Soleimani's assassination Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei meets with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget this issue and will definitely deal the counterblow to the Americans," Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.

"They killed your guest at your own home and unequivocally admitted the atrocity. This is no small matter," Ayatollah Khamenei told the Iraqi premier.

A UN special rapporteur says has condemned the US assassination and said Washington has put the world at unprecedented peril with its murder of Iran's top anti-terror commander.

UN expert raps US for arbitrary drone attack that killed Gen. Soleimani A UN special rapporteur slams the US for refusing to take responsibility for the assassination of General Soleimani in violation of international law.

Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has also warned that it is high time the international community broke its silence on Washington's drone-powered unlawful killings.

Press TV's website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

[Jul 23, 2020] Wartime Without End, War Powers Without Check -

Jul 23, 2020 |

kouroi 13 days ago

The Congress is serving the interests of the US Oligarchy, at home and abroad. The strategy is simple: keep allies/vassals in obeisance and non-competitive and destroy polities that do not subject themselves to a similar system (which ends up to become subservient to the US interests anyways, in the long run). Thus, all enemies are polities were Oligarchy doesn't run the roster, and are semi-socialist / socialist countries: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in the past Iraq.

Fully fledged democracies, that truly enact the will of the people, would not do something like this.

Carlton Meyer 13 days ago

For those too young to remember the horrible American war on Yugoslavia in 1999, or those who have forgot, or were misled with lies about Kosovo, here is a quick summary:

ericsiverson Carlton Meyer 11 days ago

This is a very accurate and honest report what { NATO } the North American Terrorist Organization did to Yugoslavia . If you Americans wish to know what kind of global government you are promoting . You only have to find the actual transcripts of Milosevic's trail . Don't read or listen to any fake news of the trail . You must read the trail transcripts and judge for yourself The butcher of Balkans has kind of been exonerated after his death . The world court is something to be very afraid of not at all a instrument of justice .But the trail transcripts are about 5000 pages so you will have to work to find out the truth .

Ram2017 11 days ago

WW2 and it's depiction in various films and TV programs has had an unexpected effect on the military psyche. The US believes it won the war on it's own and the troops came home as heroes. This is the expectation of the US military even today, unable to accept that it can be defeated. "Thank you for your service" is a given whatever crimes had been committed abroad on the innocent who had done them no harm whatsoever. The ICC is opposed on the theory that US troops cannot commit torture or massacres.

Adriaan de Leeuw Ram2017 11 days ago

The Joke is that the US has not one a war since WWII, except maybe Granada. As for War Crimes, the Current President himself committed a War Crime, He gave a Pardon to a Convicted War Criminal, that is actually breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is US Treaty Law and as such equal to the Constitution itself in importance. Schedule 4 Article 146

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defense, which shall not be less favorable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.

Article 147

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Article 148

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

The President has by absolving the Navy Seal of the Liability, Absolved the United States of the War Crime also, Now I understand that we will hear arguments here of the Presidents ability to Pardon, but take this as a given, there is no way that During the Nuremberg Trials the Prosecution of those War Crimes would have accepted the argument that the Head of State of Germany (Hitler) had the blanket Authority to Pardon German War Criminals. as such and this is why this was placed in the Geneva Conventions the very act of Absolving a War Crime is itself a War Crime!

bootin buddin Ram2017 10 days ago

We could care less what the ICC is opposed to. We are not subject to the ICC or international law. We can enforce it if needed but do not have to abide by it.

rayray bootin buddin 10 days ago

The micrograins of ICC jurisdiction and validity require a sharper legal mind than mine to sift through. But the debate is revelatory of something else -

In general, the current domestic ICC debate reveals part of the true nature of the US (helped in no small part by the hamfisted and transparent vulgarity of President Trump): that we are in fact the rogue state that we accuse everyone else in the world of being.

If we are who we say we are we should be straight up supporting the ICC, helping to fund it and increase its reach and investigative power. Far better than any military intervention to deal with the truly bad actors in the world would be a legal intervention. The idea that vicious and violent despots should run scared when they travel or otherwise face arrest and extradition is exactly right.

But we're not. Why? The answer is obvious at this point - because we have powerful players in our midst that would face that arrest. And should face that arrest.

[Jul 23, 2020] This is a biggie: Egypt's parliament approves troop deployment to Libya

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging one hole for himself after another. ..."
Jul 23, 2020 |

ET AL July 21, 2020 at 6:01 am

This is a biggie:

Al's Jizz Error: Egypt's parliament approves troop deployment to Libya

Move comes as Libya gov't and Turkey demand an end of foreign intervention in support of commander Khalifa Haftar.

I suspect In'Sultin Erd O'Grand is a mole of the garden kind. He goes about digging one hole for himself after another. If he keeps this up, all the holes will merge in to one and he will disappear! It would give the West a chance to have someone running Turkey with a more reliably western perspective though I think it is clear that whatever comes next, Turkey will not allow itself to be treated as a western annex and pawn.

[Jul 19, 2020] A Counterrevolutionary Force

Jul 19, 2020 |

B efore it became a political term, "conservative" was the antonym of "destructive." When the word acquired political significance in the English language beginning in the early 19th century -- Britain's Conservative Party was founded in 1834 -- this older definition continued to be part of its meaning in the new context. The political forces that conservatives opposed, such as liberalism and radicalism, were inclined toward destruction. Those liberals and radicals who most admired the French Revolution were candid about this: they wished to destroy the existing legal, religious, social, and economic order so as to build a better, more rational one in its place.

Conservatism is a counterrevolutionary force: the antithesis of Jacobinism and Bolshevism, not simply as historical movements but as revolutionary tendencies to which the Left -- and sometimes the Right -- is susceptible. But conservatism is not simply the negation of incendiary ideology; it is also affirmation of a principle -- the anti-utopian view that, despite its flaws, our civilization is worthy of our loyalty, even unto death.

You may have heard that American conservatism is not really conservative at all, it's just "classical liberalism." America was born in revolution, and as Louis Hartz influentially argued in the 1950s, Lockean liberalism is virtually our sole tradition. True conservatism arises from feudalism, which means that in this country it exists only as an exotic import, displaced in space and time from the lands of Habsburgs or Romanovs.

This is what liberals would like American conservatives to believe, but the opposite is more nearly the truth: conservatism is not classical liberalism; rather, what is best in classical liberalism depends on conservatism. To understand this, one must return to the historical milieu in which "conservative" and "liberal" became political terms. In the 1830s these words indicated on both sides of the Atlantic opposing attitudes toward the French Revolution and its legacy. Writing in the North American Review in 1835, Thomas Jefferson's biographer B.L. Rayner retrospectively applies the labels to the two great factions of American politics in the first decade of the republic: "If Mr. Jefferson and his friends sympathised, as every one knows that they did, with the liberal party in Europe, their opponents, the Federalists of that day, sympathised in like manner with the aristocratic, or as it is now called, legitimate or conservative party in Europe -- the party which, in order to avoid any epithet in the least degree offensive or even questionable, we have called the party of Law."

In Britain, the Conservative Party developed out of a longstanding coalition of anti-revolutionary Whigs and Tories who at one stage had been known as the "Friends of Pitt" -- that is, political allies who carried on the anti-French policies of the "independent Whig" Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, who had died in 1806. In the U.S., the anti-French faction of the 1790s was the Federalist Party, and although George Washington's administration, like Pitt's ministry, was notionally above party, in practice Washington was very much aligned with the anti-French, pro-British, counterrevolutionary politics of his Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton and his vice president and successor John Adams. America's first government was conservative.

The Federalists did not long survive the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1800, but the extinction of a conserative party did not mean the extinction of conservative, counterrevolutionary politics, which lived on within Jefferson's own party. Jefferson himself had cooled in his revolutionary ardor, and conservatism prevailed even under America's first liberal president.

me title= 00:21 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused

The fact that America's war of independence had been a revolution, and that John Locke's philosophy was at the heart of its Declaration, is not the refutation of American conservatism that might be imagined. No less a foe of Jacobinism than Edmund Burke cherished another revolution, after all, one that was conservative rather than destructive -- the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 that had established the constitutional order Burke strove to defend. Locke, for his part, had presented his Second Treatise as a justification of the Glorious Revolution. That revolution, like America's nearly a century later, was understood by the revolutionaries themselves as a change in continuity with the nation's historic principles. When the Americans invoked Lockean ideas, they did so in the full knowledge that George III's own legitimacy in England rested in the eyes of many of his subjects -- especially those of parliamentary Whigs who were already skeptical of the war with America -- on the Lockean interpretation of the Revolution of 1688. The British could not deny the Americans their rights without at the same time denying part of the foundation of Britain's own constitution: the Declaration of Independence in effect made a conservative, originalist argument.

There was much historical mythologizing involved in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. But the impulse to reconcile such alterations in government with the historical character of the nation was a conservative motive, in sharp contrast to the rationalistic and radically transformative impulse behind the likes of the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks. As for Britain's legitimist opponents of the Glorious Revolution -- the Jacobite Tories who believed Parliament was wrong to depose James II -- their conservatism was real but hopeless. Conservatism must actually conserve. The ancien regime proved to be unsalvageable everywhere: in Stuart Britain, Bourbon France, Habsburg Austria, Romanov Russia, even imperial China. Italy's Catholic faith was not enough to preserve the Papal States, either.

The age of ideological revolution has not ended; the revolutionary spirit has only assumed new forms. In China, still ruled by a Communist Party, it has become institutionalized, and the revolution is advanced not in the crude manner of the old Soviet Union but through a strategy of global economic transformation, coupled with ruthless reeducation programs at home. In the West, liberalism has cut loose from its civilizational roots, and from all conservative restraint, and has become an ideology of cultural revolution combined with an acceptance of the global economic reconfiguration also desired by China.

The conservative's task today, as during the French Revolution and the Cold War, is counterrevolutionary. But now the revolution is truly global, and though it may not be as violent as in centuries past -- not yet -- the stakes are hardly lower. America and her conservatives will need the utmost resolve, and a deep commitment to the sources of our civilization, if we are to prevail again. Yet until now, at least, Providence seems to have intended the Anglo-Americans to be the firefighters against the conflagration.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review , and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.

Related: Introducing the TAC Symposium: What Is American Conservatism?

[Jul 18, 2020] SCOTT RITTER- Powell Iraq -- Regime Change, Not Disarmament- The Fundamental Lie Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41. ..."
"... Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from power. ..."
"... Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of ..."
"... Consortium News. ..."
"... 25th Anniversary ..."
Jul 18, 2020 |

SCOTT RITTER: Powell & Iraq -- Regime Change, Not Disarmament: The Fundamental Lie July 18, 2020 Save

Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.

By Scott Ritter
Special to Consortium News

T he New York Times Magazine has published a puff piece soft-peddling former Secretary of State Colin Powell's role in selling a war on Iraq to the UN Security Council using what turned out to be bad intelligence. "Colin Powell Still Wants Answers" is the title of the article, written by Robert Draper. "The analysts who provided the intelligence," a sub-header to the article declares, "now say it was doubted inside the CIA at the time."

Draper's article is an extract from a book, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America into Iraq , scheduled for publication later this month. In the interest of full disclosure, I was approached by Draper in 2018 about his interest in writing this book, and I agreed to be interviewed as part of his research. I have not yet read the book, but can note that, based upon the tone and content of his New York Times Magazine article, my words apparently carried little weight.

Regime Change, Not WMD

I spent some time articulating to Draper my contention that the issue with Saddam Hussein's Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but rather regime change, and that everything had to be viewed in the light of this reality -- including Powell's Feb. 5, 2003 presentation before the UN Security Council. Based upon the content of his article, I might as well have been talking to a brick wall.

Powell's 2003 presentation before the council did not take place in a policy vacuum. In many ways, the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War, which Powell helped orchestrate. Its fumbled aftermath was again, something that transpired on Powell's watch as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the administration of George H. W. Bush.

Powell at UN Security Council. (UN Photo)

Powell was part of the policy team that crafted the post-Gulf War response to the fact that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, survived a conflict he was not meant to. After being labeled the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler whose crimes required Nuremburg-like retribution in a speech delivered by President Bush in October 1990, the Iraqi President's post-conflict hold on power had become a political problem for Bush 41.

Powell was aware of the CIA's post-war assessment on the vulnerability of Saddam's rule to continued economic sanctions, and helped craft the policy that led to the passage of Security Council resolution 687 in April 1991. That linked Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its WMD prior to any lifting of sanctions and the reality that it was U.S. policy not to lift these sanctions, regardless of Iraq's disarmament status, until which time Saddam was removed from power.

Regime change, not disarmament, was always the driving factor behind U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Powell knew this because he helped craft the original policy.

I bore witness to the reality of this policy as a weapons inspector working for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), created under the mandate of resolution 687 to oversee the disarming of Iraq's WMD. Brought in to create an intelligence capability for the inspection team, my remit soon expanded to operations and, more specifically, how Iraq was hiding retained weapons and capability from the inspectors.


UN weapons inspectors in central Iraq, June 1, 1991. (UN Photo)

One of my first tasks was addressing discrepancies in Iraq's accounting of its modified SCUD missile arsenal; in December 1991 I wrote an assessment that Iraq was likely retaining approximately 100 missiles. By March 1992 Iraq, under pressure, admitted it had retained a force of 89 missiles (that number later grew to 97).

After extensive investigations, I was able to corroborate the Iraqi declarations, and in November 1992 issued an assessment that UNSCOM could account for the totality of Iraq's SCUD missile force. This, of course, was an unacceptable conclusion, given that a compliant Iraq meant sanctions would need to be lifted and Saddam would survive.

The U.S. intelligence community rejected my findings without providing any fact-based evidence to refute it, and the CIA later briefed the Senate that it assessed Iraq to be retaining a force of some 200 covert SCUD missiles. This all took place under Powell's watch as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

I challenged the CIA's assessment, and organized the largest, most complex inspection in UNSCOM's history to investigate the intelligence behind the 200-missile assessment. In the end, the intelligence was shown to be wrong, and in November 1993 I briefed the CIA Director's senior staff on UNSCOM's conclusion that all SCUD missiles were accounted for.

Moving the Goalposts

The CIA's response was to assert that Iraq had a force of 12-20 covert SCUD missiles, and that this number would never change, regardless of what UNSCOM did. This same assessment was in play at the time of Powell's Security Council presentation, a blatant lie born of the willful manufacture of lies by an entity -- the CIA -- whose task was regime change, not disarmament.

Powell knew all of this, and yet he still delivered his speech to the UN Security Council.

In October 2002, in a briefing designed to undermine the credibility of UN inspectors preparing to return to Iraq, the Defense Intelligence Agency trotted out Dr. John Yurechko, the defense intelligence officer for information operations and denial and deception, to provide a briefing detailing U.S. claims that Iraq was engaged in a systematic process of concealment regarding its WMD programs.

John Yurechko, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, briefs reporters at the Pentagon on Oct. 8, 2002 (U.S. Defense Dept.)

According to Yurechko, the briefing was compiled from several sources, including "inspector memoirs" and Iraqi defectors. The briefing was farcical, a deliberate effort to propagate misinformation by the administration of Bush 43. I know -- starting in 1994, I led a concerted UNSCOM effort involving the intelligence services of eight nations to get to the bottom of Iraq's so-called "concealment mechanism."

Using innovative imagery intelligence techniques, defector debriefs, agent networks and communications intercepts, combined with extremely aggressive on-site inspections, I was able, by March 1998, to conclude that Iraqi concealment efforts were largely centered on protecting Saddam Hussein from assassination, and had nothing to do with hiding WMD. This, too, was an inconvenient finding, and led to the U.S. dismantling the apparatus of investigation I had so carefully assembled over the course of four years.

It was never about the WMD -- Powell knew this. It was always about regime change.

Using UN as Cover for Coup Attempt

In 1991, Powell signed off on the incorporation of elite U.S. military commandos into the CIA's Special Activities Staff for the purpose of using UNSCOM as a front to collect intelligence that could facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein. I worked with this special cell from 1991 until 1996, on the mistaken opinion that the unique intelligence, logistics and communications capability they provided were useful to planning and executing the complex inspections I was helping lead in Iraq.

This program resulted in the failed coup attempt in June 1996 that used UNSCOM as its operational cover -- the coup failed, the Special Activities Staff ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and we inspectors were left holding the bag. The Iraqis had every right to be concerned that UNSCOM inspections were being used to target their president because, the truth be told, they were.

Nowhere in Powell's presentation to the Security Council, or in any of his efforts to recast that presentation as a good intention led astray by bad intelligence, does the reality of regime change factor in. Regime change was the only policy objective of three successive U.S. presidential administrations -- Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.

Powell was a key player in two of these. He knew. He knew about the existence of the CIA's Iraq Operations Group. He knew of the successive string of covert "findings" issued by U.S. presidents authorizing the CIA to remove Saddam Hussein from power using lethal force. He knew that the die had been cast for war long before Bush 43 decided to engage the United Nations in the fall of 2002.

Powell Knew

Powell knew all of this, and yet he still allowed himself to be used as a front to sell this conflict to the international community, and by extension the American people, using intelligence that was demonstrably false. If, simply by drawing on my experience as an UNSCOM inspector, I knew every word he uttered before the Security Council was a lie the moment he spoke, Powell should have as well, because every aspect of my work as an UNSCOM inspector was known to, and documented by, the CIA.

It is not that I was unknown to Powell in the context of the WMD narrative. Indeed, my name came up during an interview Powell gave to Fox News on Sept. 8, 2002, when he was asked to comment on a quote from my speech to the Iraqi Parliament earlier that month in which I stated:

"The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not to date been backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the United States. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation."

Powell responded by declaring,

"We have facts, not speculation. Scott is certainly entitled to his opinion but I'm afraid that I would not place the security of my nation and the security of our friends in the region on that kind of an assertion by somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any longer If Scott is right, then why are they keeping the inspectors out? If Scott is right, why don't they say, 'Anytime, any place, anywhere, bring 'em in, everybody come in -- we are clean?' The reason is they are not clean. And we have to find out what they have and what we're going to do about it. And that's why it's been the policy of this government to insist that Iraq be disarmed in accordance with the terms of the relevant UN resolutions."

UN inspectors in Iraq. (UN Photo)

Of course, in November 2002, Iraq did just what Powell said they would never do -- they let the UN inspectors return without preconditions. The inspectors quickly exposed the fact that the "high quality" U.S. intelligence they had been tasked with investigating was pure bunk. Left to their own devices, the new round of UN weapons inspections would soon be able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, paving the way for the lifting of sanctions and the continued survival of Saddam Hussein.

Powell knew this was not an option. And thus he allowed himself to be used as a vehicle for disseminating more lies -- lies that would take the U.S. to war, cost thousands of U.S. service members their lives, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, all in the name of regime change.

Back to Robert Draper. I spent a considerable amount of time impressing upon him the reality of regime change as a policy, and the fact that the WMD disarmament issue existed for the sole purpose of facilitating regime change. Apparently, my words had little impact, as all Draper has done in his article is continue the false narrative that America went to war on the weight of false and misleading intelligence.

Draper is wrong -- America went to war because it was our policy as a nation, sustained over three successive presidential administrations, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. By 2002 the WMD narrative that had been used to support and sustain this regime change policy was weakening.

Powell's speech was a last-gasp effort to use the story of Iraqi WMD for the purpose it was always intended -- to facilitate the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In this light, Colin Powell's speech was one of the greatest successes in CIA history. That is not the story, however, Draper chose to tell, and the world is worse off for that failed opportunity.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please Contribute to Consortium
News on its 25th Anniversary

[Jul 14, 2020] There is a recent book which analyses how the US policy of preventive mass murder and torture in Indonesia has inspired policies, structures and knowhow in many of US client states

Jul 14, 2020 |

JC , Jul 12 2020 20:08 utc | 100

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jul 12 2020 1:38 utc | 48 & 64
Posted by: Lucci | Jul 12 2020 15:59 utc | 87

To clear the air, I recalled the "Non-Aligned Movement a forum of developing states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc or nations." It consist of - Nehru India, Tito Yugoslavia, Bung Karno, Bapa Sukarno Indonesia, Zhou Enlai China, Habib Bourguiba Tunisian, Norodom Sihanouk Cambodian, U Nu Burma, Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser Egypt, Fidel Castro Cuba, at the Bandung conference in 1955, the Non-Aligned Movement was born. Later many nationalism leaders were disposed. How about Sukarno, did he "slaughter" the Chinese? Nope that's from what I was told from BBC and it remains in my mind until uncle tungstan and Lucci points out my mistakes, it was Suharto with CIA and Brit Foreign Office that brought down Sukarno and Suharto was disposed his wife was known as Ten Percent.

How we destroyed Sukarno

I was growing up and aligned with Americans exceptionlism. It was after ww2 and nationalism on the rise (almost) everywhere changed of government. In school each morning assembled to raised the union jack and sing god save the freaking queen. That's when I was indoctrinated from BBC the evils of communism and socialism. Western imperialist was the way to go man. Much of my lunch hours in the library mainly reading, one book, my librarian recommended The Jungle is Neutral by Spencer F, Chapman . The book still available and probably my view has changed am no longer accepting the stupid Brit and Yank.

Tuyzentfloot , Jul 12 2020 21:07 utc | 103

@ JC there is a recent book which analyses how the US policy of preventive mass murder and torture in Indonesia has inspired policies, structures and knowhow in many of US client states :

uncle tungsten , Jul 12 2020 21:19 utc | 104
JC #100

Thank you for clearing the air on Sukarno. The Indonesian coup that destroyed the democratic socialis government he led was a tragic loss to the people of Indonesia. The coup leader Suharto fully backed by the CIA murdered many hundreds of thousands of civilians and their elected officials and educators and medical staff. It was a ruthless murderous purge. The Dulles brothers at the top.

Suharto then ruled for decades and Indonesia became the evil corruption ridden prison it is today. This sad country is our planets exemplar failed state ruled by criminal oligarchs and their owned courts and religion.

Indonesian people are great in their spirit and humility, they deserve better.

Jen , Jul 12 2020 23:50 utc | 114

JC and others who have been conversing with him on the issue of the Indonesian military's persecution and slaughter of Chinese Indonesians and others perceived to be Communist or sympathetic to Communism or socialism might be interested in watching Joshua Oppenheimer's "The Act of Killing" to see how small-time thugs and young people (especially those in the Pancasila Youth movement) alike were caught up in the anti-Communist brainwashing frenzy in Indonesia during the 1960s and participated in the mass persecution and slaughter themselves.

Oppenheimer tracked down some of these former killers in North Sumatra and got them to re-enact their crimes in whatever from they desired. For various reasons, some of them psychological, they were quite enthusiastic about this idea. Significantly they chose to re-enact their crimes as a Hollywood Western / Godfather-style pastiche film, even getting their relatives and friends to play extras.

The mass murderers interviewed did well for themselves with some of them even becoming politicians and rising to the level of Cabinet Minister in the Indonesian government. The film also shows something of how deeply corruption is embedded in everyday life with one prospective political candidate going around bribing villagers and demanding money from small-time ethnic Chinese shopkeepers in his electorate and threatening them with violence if they do not cough up.

The major issue I have with the film is that by focusing on these mass murderers in North Sumatra, it misses the overall national and international political and social context that still supports and applauds what these killers did. As long as this continues, the likelihood that similar persecutions and genocidal purges of outsider groups and individuals, be they Chinese, Christian, Shi'a and other heterodox Muslim, academics, trade unionists, separatists in Maluku, West Papua or other parts of Indoneisa, and all these purges supported by the West in some way, will occur in the future is strong.

Antonym , Jul 13 2020 1:44 utc | 132

@ Jen 114
"As long as this continues, the likelihood that similar persecutions and genocidal purges of outsider groups and individuals, be they Chinese, Christian, Shi'a and other heterodox Muslim, academics, trade unionists, separatists in Maluku, West Papua or other parts of Indoneisa, and all these purges supported by the West in some way, will occur in the future is strong."

Yeah, "we" Anglos" are the only bad guys on this planet - not.
The CIA & co are not yet into slaughtering of Christians. Extremist Indonesian Sunni Muslims were guilty in the above atrocities, continuing as harassments till today. Hard to swallow: bad brown people do exist!

[Jul 13, 2020] George Washington Tried To Warn Americans About Foreign Policy Today by Doug Bandow

Highly recommended!
This is all about maintaining the US-centered global neoliberal empire. After empires is created the the USA became the salve of imperial interests and in a way stopped existing as an independent country. Everything is thrown on the altar of "full spectrum Dominance". The result is as close to a real political and economic disaster as we can get. Like USSR leadership the US elite realized now that neoliberalism is not sustainable, but can't do anything as all bets were made for the final victory of neoliberalism all over the world, much like Soviets hoped for the victory of communism. That did not happened and although the USA now is in much better position then the USSR in 60th (but with the similar level of deterioration of cognitive abilities of the politicians as the USSR). In this sense COVID-19 was a powerful catalyst of the crush of the US-centered neoliberal empire
Notable quotes:
"... On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy." ..."
"... Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror. ..."
"... The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war. ..."
"... In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation. ..."
Jul 13, 2020 |

Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as "the Blob." Although policymakers sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S. "leadership," which means a determination to micro-manage the world.

Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob's dictates on other peoples. If foreigners die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism's apologists. "Stuff happens" with the best-intentioned policies.

One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited the American people. However, all too often the Blob's policies instead aid other governments and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations, which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for others.

The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don't spend a lot of time attempting to take over Montenegro's foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what would you do after taking over Fiji's foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation? Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax shelter.

Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America's treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington's support for reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it's surprisingly easy for foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow "vital" and therefore require America's attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.

The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam's ear. Even nominally classical liberal officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting everyone else's liberty, prosperity, and peace.

Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still, the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams' famous 1821 Independence Day address.

Warned Adams:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."

"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit . [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."

Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American, George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president. Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign influences.

Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous 1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses today do, supposedly for America.

Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.

Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of "union," did people uniformly say the United States "is" rather than "are." However, the transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the world's largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime's dictates. The modern American "republic" was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington's message.

Today Washington, D.C.'s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy, irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow's hostility. And that Ukraine, a country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy. Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America' enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.

Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often, and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.

George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought to win America's support against Great Britain. He warned: "nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

Is there a better description of US foreign policy today? Even when a favored nation is clearly, ostentatiously, murderously on the wrong side – consider Saudi Arabia's unprovoked aggression against Yemen – many American policymakers refuse to allow a single word of criticism to escape their lips. The US has indeed become "a slave," as George Washington warned.

The consequences for the US and the world are highly negative. He observed that "likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."

This is an almost perfect description of the current US approach. American colonists revolted against what they believed had become ever more "foreign" control, yet the US backs Israel's occupation and mistreatment of millions of Palestinians. American policymakers parade the globe spouting the rhetoric of freedom yet subsidize Egypt as it imprisons tens of thousands and oppresses millions of people. Washington decries Chinese aggressiveness, yet provides planes, munitions, and intelligence to aid Riyadh in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians and destruction of Yemeni homes, businesses, and hospitals. In such cases, policymakers have betrayed America "into a participation in the quarrels and wars without adequate inducement or justification."

On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy."

Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror.

Read George Washington and you would think he had gained a supernatural glimpse into today's policy debates. He worried about the result when the national government "adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."

What better describes US policy toward China and Russia? To be sure, these are nasty regimes. Yet that has rarely bothered Uncle Sam's relations with other states. Saudi Arabia, a corrupt and totalitarian theocracy, has been sheltered, protected, and reassured by the US even after invading its poor neighbor. Among Washington's other best friends: Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, tyrannies all.

The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war.

Washington, DC also is treating China as a near-enemy, claiming the right to control China along its own borders – essentially attempting to apply America's Monroe Doctrine to Asia. This is something Americans would never allow another nation, especially China, to do to the US Imagine the response if Beijing sent its navy up the East Coast, told the US how to treat Cuba, and constantly talked of the possibility of war. America's consistently hostile, aggressive policy is the result of "projects of pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives."

This kind of foreign policy also corrupts the American political system. It encourages officials and people to put foreign interests before that of America. As George Washington observed, this mindset: "gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; guiding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

For instance, Woodrow Wilson and America's Anglophile establishment backed Great Britain over the interests of the American people, dragging the US into World War I, a mindless imperial slugfest that this nation should have avoided. After the Cold War's end Americans with ties to Central and Eastern Europe pushed to expand NATO to their ancestral homes, which created new defense obligations for America while inflaming Russian hostility. Ethnic Greeks and Turks constantly battle over policy toward their ethnic homelands. Taiwan has developed enduring ties with congressional Republicans, especially, ensuring US government support against Beijing. Many evangelical Christians, especially those who hold a particularly bizarre eschatology (basically, Jews must gather together in their national homeland to be slaughtered before Jesus can return), back Israel in whatever it does to assist the apparently helpless God of creation finish his job. The policies that result from such campaigns inevitably are shaped to benefit foreign interests, not Americans.

Regarding the impact of such a system on the political system George Washington also was prescient: "As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public council. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation.

What to do about such a long-standing problem? George Washington was neither naïf nor isolationist. He believed in what passed for globalism in those days: a commercial republic should trade widely. He didn't oppose alliances, for limited purposes and durations. After all, support from France was necessary for the colonies to win independence.

He proposed a practical policy tied to ongoing realities. The authorities should "steer clear of permanent alliances," have with other states "as little political connection as possible," and not "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils" of other nations' "ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice." Most important, the object of US foreign policy was to serve the interests of the American people. In practice it was a matter of prudence, to be adapted to circumstance and interest. He would not necessarily foreclose defense of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Germany, but would insist that such proposals reflect a serious analysis of current realities and be decided based on what is best for Americans. He would recognize that what might have been true a few decades ago likely isn't true today. In reality, little of current US foreign policy would have survived his critical review.

George Washington was an eminently practical man who managed to speak through the ages. America's recently disastrous experience of playing officious, obnoxious hegemon highlights his good judgment. The US, he argued, should "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all."

America may still formally be a republic, but its foreign policy long ago became imperial. As John Quincy Adams warned, the US is "no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Americans have learned at great cost that international affairs are too important to be left to the Blob and foreign policy professionals, handed off to international relations scholars, or, worst of all, subcontracted to other nations and their lobbyists. The American people should insist on their nation's return to a true republican foreign policy.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Jul 09, 2020] Russia-Baiting Is the Only Game in Town by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... The cash must be Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. ..."
Jul 09, 2020 |

There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks "Why does Trump put Russia first?" before calling for a "swift and significant U.S. response." Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening Syria.

The Times is also titillating with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world's number one producer of opium and its byproducts.

The cash must be Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin's GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the "alleged" and consider for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up that sort of evidence.

Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton observed the media was reporting a "fact" that there was a rumor.

Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is "disgusted" by a "betrayal" of American troops due to Trump's insistence on maintaining "an embarrassing campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin."

The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed but are advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the "circumstantial details" are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.

Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly need an incentive to kill Americans and as only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.

The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been verified. For once America's Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the "intelligence community," but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.

The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee, currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff's later role in cooking the witnesses that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.

Schiff predictably opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying "I find it inexplicable in light of these very public allegations that the president hasn't come before the country and assured the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect American troops."

Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed "sources with access," which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn't even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it's worth, a number of former genuine intelligence officers including Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou , Scott Ritter , and Ray McGovern have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no electronic trail to validate it.

Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban. One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons, training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers. Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort was delusional from the start.

So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a "defensive" U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is unpredictable, but America's experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very encouraging.

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, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is .

Zarathustra , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:28 am GMT

Also there are the poppy fields.

Milton , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:35 am GMT

The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014, and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic unrest Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917 using the same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”. Putin undid all their hard work in Russia and kicked them out and seized their ill gotten gains: this, coupled with their congenital hatred of Russia, is the reason for the non-stop, bipartisan refrain of “Russia, Russia, Russia.”

anonymous [316] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:05 am GMT

It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump.

There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like losing wars. It is personally humiliating to retreat. The whole country is also worn down by lost wars and the psychological blow lasts for over 10 years like during the post-Vietnam era. Keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan permanently won’t win the war but it will prevent a defeat and potentially humiliating last minute evacuation when the Taliban retake Kabul.

Also Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan: “Al-Qaeda has 400 to 600 operatives active in 12 Afghan provinces and is running training camps in the east of the country, according to the report released Friday. U.N. experts, drawing their research from interviews with U.N. member states, including their intelligence and security services, plus think tanks and regional officials, say the Taliban has played a double game with the Trump Administration, consulting with al-Qaeda senior leaders throughout its 16 months of peace talks with U.S. officials and reassuring Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, that the Taliban would “honour their historical ties” to the terrorist group.”

vot tak , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:10 am GMT

While the melodrama about trump=pro Russia and dems=anti Russia makes good political theater to keep folks running in circles chasing their tails, this is not the main reason for the continuous attacks on Russia by organs of the zpc/nwo. The main reason is Russia is not owned by them. Not a colony. The main reason for the psywar is not about trump vs dems, it is about keeping the Russia=bad guys theme seeded in the propaganda. That was the main reason behind “Russiagate”, as well. And as with that scam, both “sides” knowingly played their part hyping the theater to keep that Russia=bad guy propaganda theme in the mind of americans.

Robert Dolan , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:12 am GMT

I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about Russia. I completely tune it out the same way I tuned out any news about “CHAZ.”

Some things are just too silly to bother with.

Harold Smith , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:29 am GMT

“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump.”

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true. So what? I don’t see how it can be used as justification to double down on a pointless war. (Reasonable people might see it as another reason to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later).

Moreover, I don’t think they’d have to create such drama to get Trump the imperialist to keep the troops in Afghanistan (if he actually had any intention to withdraw them in the first place).

This propaganda effort reminds me of the Skripal affair. Perhaps Trump’s handlers and enablers realize that he’ll lose the election (if we have one) so they’re trying to manipulate him into escalating tensions with Russia (just as they are with China, Iran and Venezuela).

Alfred , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:30 am GMT

The Americans were always very proud and upfront about how they organized, trained, equipped and financed the Taliban to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. In view of this, why do they act so surprised should the Russians do something similar on a much smaller scale?

Obviously, the whole story was concocted in Washington, but so what?

Anyone with half a brain should know that the Americans are in Afghanistan because the Americans control the world trade in narcotics. Columbia is the cocaine end of the business.

I do wish some smart chemists would synthesize heroin and cocaine in a laboratory and put the CIA out of business.

Patagonia Man , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:33 am GMT

“and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump”

The demonization of a democratically-elected President by the zionist-owned New York Times , Washington Post and CNN is somewaht reminiscent of the demonization of a certain Austrian in the Western media after the 1933 World Jewry’s declaration of war on Nazi Germany.

“He who controls the narrative controls the consciousness”

With Wolf Blitz’s, Bolton’s, and this week’s release of Trump’s relative’s book discrediting his mental health. How many books is that now???

But, times have moved on. Trump can ride this wave by learning the dark art of playing the victim using the mantra ‘look how hard I’m trying’ and appealing to US voters as their ‘law and order’ president.

Geopolitically speaking, if the US Zio-cons were smart, rather than suffering from ‘Groupthink’, they would be trying to entice Russia away from its partner, China, and draw Russia into playing a greater role in Europe. Recall that Putin had asked if Russia could join NATO.

But, alas, they’re still making the same mistake they did in 1991 after the collapse of Central Industrialism in the former USSR.

No Friend Of The Devil , says: July 7, 2020 at 6:51 am GMT

The Mujahudeen morphing into Al Qaeda is a new one on me that I have never heard before. I had read and heard countless times that it was Al Qaeda all along in Afghanistan that the U.S. assisted to fight against the USSR. It does not make sense either, since the MEK ( Mujahudeen ) is a twisted Shiite cult Iranian, and Al Qaeda is Arabic and twisted Sunni cult. So, the language and religious differences do not make any sense that one became the other.

I guess that it makes perfect sense to say anything at all, regardless of the facts, to the Terrible Trio in the DNC, just to keep the focus on themselves, rather than on Biden.

Mike_from_Russia , says: July 7, 2020 at 7:32 am GMT

We in Russia read both the main and alternative press in the United States with great interest. Sites with those translations are quite popular.

Mikhail , says: • Website July 7, 2020 at 7:40 am GMT

Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S. response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening Syria.

The pathetic Rice has plenty of company. During a 7/5 CNN puff segment with Dana Bash, Tammy Duckworth (another potential Biden VP), out of the blue said that the Russians put out a bounty on US forces. Of course, Bash didn’t challenge Duckworth.

Downplayed in all of this is the fact that Russia was one of the first, if not the first nation, to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian assistance to the US military operation in Afghanistan.

Achilles Wannabe , says: July 7, 2020 at 7:54 am GMT

“…the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times.”

Pelosi is the proud daughter of a shabbos goy father; Schumer is “shomer” or professed guardian of Israel; Schiff is the decendent of the Internationale Banker who supported Trotsky’s take down of the Czar; the NYT is what happens when Hebrews learn to write English. The Jews have been trying to rule Russia for almost 200 years as Solzhenitsyn would have told us if he could have gotten a publisher in the Jewish American publishing industry. If Stalin hadn’t thrown the Bolshevik Jews out, there might not have been a cold war. Watch out Gentiles. These people have taken us into 3 wars for their interests and they NEVER change.

Ray Caruso , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:01 am GMT

And, of course, the “conservative” maggots are going along with the obvious liberal lies once again. There has never been a group of more cowardly and worthless individuals than American “conservatives”.

Emily , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:10 am GMT

The hope of the world.
Edgar Cayce
Famous US psychic.

As the USA continues its path into a political, moral and military cesspit of pure corruption, lies, violence, mass murder and sheer evil, it is increasingly difficult to argue with Cayce.
He was certainly on to something, and that something was like, 80 years ago.
One can even put more belief and trust in a psychic these days – than anything being claimed or reported by the USA alphabets, government or MSM
Sickening and frightening really.

Emily , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:15 am GMT

Absolutely and full of the USA military.
Take a look.
Notice U tube has censored the Vid.
Tells you all you need to know about the content – if you have half a brain …….

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:23 am GMT

Philip, I wish you hadn’t written, “a certainly forks story.”

I’ve been seeing that too much, recently, that silly fashion of using “forks” for “false”.

Please stop it. Use correct English.

Emily , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:25 am GMT

There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like losing wars

You would have thought by now the American Generals would have got used to ‘losing wars’.
They haven’t won one other than Grenada in living memory.
The Russians even had to win WW2 for them….
Russia and China would eat them alive today.
So we are now down to sheer bullying, bluster and illegal economic sabotage.
Venezuela springs to mind.

Franklin Ryckaert , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:47 am GMT

Yes, but they also hate Putin for liberating Russia from its rapacious oligarchs, nearly all of whom were Jews. The present artificially created hatred for Russia in the US is in reality the hatred of the frustrated Jewish Mafia.

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:59 am GMT

I agree. Except it would be fatal for the smart chemists. They’d all die for reasons smart chemists wouldn’t be able to work out.

But isn’t this the Art of the Deal? Breaching the deal? Hadn’t the US just made a deal with the Taliban to pull out? Pull its troops out?

So Russia was needed to help the U.S. pull out of the deal, right? Doesn’t Russia provide that help again and again and again?

animalogic , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:07 am GMT
@Robert Dolan

“I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about Russia”

Lenny is clapping his hands excitedly.
“Oy believe it, George ! I do – I do – I do !”
George grunts, clears his throat & spits with some force & accuracy at a scrunched up copy of the NYT.

animalogic , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:14 am GMT
@Harold Smith

“Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true.”
For amusement’s sake, lets wonder what would happen should the Russians offer a bounty to US & allied troops to kill each other . A kind of cash incentive to bring back the final years of the Vietnam war.

Anon [833] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:26 am GMT

It sure will be entertaining to watch Joe Biden try to cope with the duties of the presidency. He makes the fictional President Camacho from the movie “Idiocracy” look like a statesman with the intellectual skills of a Teddy Roosevelt by comparison. I can picture his inaugural address in my head, as he inevitably loses his place on the teleprompter and starts babbling about pony soldiers and you know, the thing. After a grope fest at his inaugural ball, instead of the Oval Office he will immediately be consigned to the White House basement for the duration of his term. If you thought an inarticulate President Donnie made for good reality TV, just wait till a totally incoherent President Joe has the whole world rollicking with laughter. Plus, Republicans get their turn to amuse with grid lock of the Congress and the discharge of mass quantities of bog sediment at the administration every single day for four solid years. It’s a win for comedy no matter which candidate is elected!

animalogic , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:29 am GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse

Ann, you’ve got the quote wrong. Here is what he actually wrote:

“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties”

I’m going to assume you didn’t mean “forks” but actually “faux”.
Using “faux” is here is not incorrect. Giraldi could have meant the NYT article was “not real, but made to look or seem real” — which goes considerably further than “false”.
However, that does not necessarily mean that other users of “faux” are not indulging themselves in a “silly fashion”.

mcohen , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:51 am GMT

Meena talk to me

Robjil , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:52 am GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse

Forked tongue.

In that sense it makes sense.

The US/Israel and its Zion MSM always talks in Forked tongue.

Patagonia Man , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:56 am GMT
@Emily to consecrate Russia to the heart of Mother Mary – which still hasn’t fully been fulfilled, btw – is another indication of Russia’s leadership in a community of a shared future for humanity, aka Community of Common Destiny (CCD), as advocated by the Russian President’s ‘double-helix’ partner, China’s President Xi Jinping.

Compare and contrast that with, then President, Obama’s words to Putin: “The United States has exclusive rights to anywhere in the world.”

What an incredibly exciting time to be alive!


Patagonia Man , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:07 am GMT

Just a headsup!

Newsweek, TIME, The Readers Digest , & CNN are US propaganda outlets. It would be unwise to cite any of these sources.


Franz , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:15 am GMT
@Alfred family bankruptcy when every pharmacist knows they re-branded and off-shored their loot several years ago. Their fine was pocket lint to them.

But that fake allowed the corporate-government axis to make ALL serious painkillers effectively illegal, including the ones being used safely before Purdue Pharma came along.

Narcotics are safe when used properly, but where’s the CIA’s take there? So they killed their competitors and made your family doctor an agent. And sell lots of dope. Because the nation the CIA protects is in terminal debt, agencies need hard cash from somewhere .

tyrone , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:43 am GMT
@Robert Dolan

Yeah, but you don’t want to accidentally drive into some “CHAZ” ……planet of the apes scenario.

tyrone , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:51 am GMT

That’s why the democrats and the left fight to keep the southern border open ,the hordes of third world peasants are just a “bonus”……look at who the drugs are destroying i.e. the target

Erzberger , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:52 am GMT

The Democrats have predictably been outdone by the anti-Trump Republicans in this matter. You can’t sink any lower in Russia-baiting than the Lincoln project’s recent release, “Fellow Traveler”. Beyond stupid and revolting. Gives you a clue of their very low opinion of the American voter

peter mcloughlin , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:57 am GMT

There is a dangerous illusion – characterized in part by demonizing rivals – and that is the developing crisis is merely a re-run of the Cold War. After the Napoleonic wars the Congress system was established to maintain peace in Europe. It worked reasonably well, interrupted significantly by the Crimean war, but finally buried with the outbreak of WWI in 1914; it did not prevent that cataclysmic conflict. Then came the League of Nations for a short time; it did not stop WWII. The United Nations and other post-war institutions were established in the 1940s. Now we are in the approaches to WWIII. But very few see. The apocalyptic conflict feared during the Cold War is nearing.

Sick of Orcs , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:18 am GMT

Russia Hoax 2 is supposed to keep our minds off the Uniparty’s anarcho-tyranny, but it’s awfully hard to fear Putin with orcs and shitlibs running amok wrecking statues of racist elks.

BL , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:30 am GMT
@Robert Dolan olostomy Bag, or were able to steal it on election night, Trump would be spending the rest of his life in prison right now.

And Russia would have acquiesced to, though more likely quietly assisted, the frame-up. What we don’t know at this point is what generational geopolitical payoff Russia was promised by Brennan in March 2016, for its participation. My suspicion is that Nord Stream II was merely a down payment.

I don’t envy Barr or Durham. How do they resolve this greatest political scandal in American history when at the center of it you have a former CIA Director who is a Russian mole.

Tom Welsh , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:55 am GMT

Michael Morell: “Let Us Kill Iranians and Russians in Syria!”

JoaoAlfaiate , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:55 am GMT

If you review the New York Times editorial page and its oped pieces you will see more half of the content each day is anti Trump. The Times has also played up the civil rights aspect of the BLM movement while playing down the hooliganism of Antifa and the looting by Blacks which has accompanied it. Many neighborhoods in Manhattan were trashed and looted far beyond what The Times reported. So promoting the “Russian Bounty” lie doesn’t surprise me at all. Remember also Times employees went absolutely crazy when the paper printed an oped by Sen. Tom Cotton. What a bunch of lying flakes and chicken shits.

Really No Shit , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:55 am GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert

“The Deep State vermin…” that @Milton is talking about is about the Jews. You’re merely reinforcing his salient points.

Tom Welsh , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:57 am GMT

“… the intellectual skills of a Teddy Roosevelt…”


Patagonia Man , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:57 am GMT
@tyrone of more and more of the total of products and services produced in the US economy every year (GDP) goes to capital, i.e., the holders of wealth, rather than workers, which in turn creates a drag on further GDP – so eventually it becomes self defeating.

Think: Vicious Cycle of Poverty, as opposed to Virtuous Cycle of Prosperity.

But that explains why neither the Dems / Repubs are determined to do anything about the 1,000,000+ illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border every year.

As said many times by many others: ‘The US has one political party – the business party, with 2 wings.’

Tom Welsh , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:59 am GMT

“The Russians even had to win WW2 for them….”

The Soviets actually had to stop the Wehrmacht cold (very cold, indeed) and be ready to start rolling it back before the USA even dared to join the war.

Old and Grumpy , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:00 pm GMT
@Patagonia Man

US Ziocons movement is a family affair. They’re into the second and third generation, who are still following their daddy’s’ or grandpa’s playbook. Original ideas are hard to come by with this lot.

Z-man , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:04 pm GMT

The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.

Good one but what do you mean may be suffering ? (Grin)
Not only replace Trump with Biden but with all the radicals now infesting theDemo’krat party and manipulating demented, sleepy Joe.

anonymous [400] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:06 pm GMT

These are all made up stories. By the time one fake story is laboriously dismantled another one is made up. It’s always a game of playing catch-up. Russia makes a good boogyman and has served well in that role for three generations now so it’s a tested formula. It’s a dangerous game since all these idiots could sleepwalk us into an armed clash with Russia somewhere. Then of course there’ll plenty of problems but perhaps there’s a calculation that something like that could benefit this band of war inciters.

Patagonia Man , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:12 pm GMT
@BL ?

Are you not aware that cover stories are used to control explanations – to prevent any critical thinking by American voters of any incident/event?

This excellent,, short article explains what you need to know to defend yourself against cover stories in the future: Cover Stories Are Used To Control Explanations – UR columnist & insider Paul Craig Roberts.

Old and Grumpy , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:17 pm GMT

I know old liberals have ate up all things Russia, Russia, Russia. Have the POBs (people of brown)? Have all those post ’67 immigrants? They all vote democrats, and are now the future demographic of America. Its their kids that have to wanna die for the war machine now. Has the Yiddish propaganda sheet worked its magic on them? The 1619 Project sure did. My humble guess is no, despite their voting. Most just want money.

Folks, it is time to get your love ones to stop enlisting and re-enlisting in the US military. It is the only boycott we can do that will actually hurt.

Patagonia Man , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:19 pm GMT


“but perhaps there’s a calculation that something like that could benefit this band of war inciters.”

What better way for a tiny ethno-religious (~22 million) of getting majority-Christian nations to wipe each other out?

Same was true of WWI.

Except for Japan, the same was true of WWII.

Its not referred to as the oldest hatred for nuttin’!

anonymous [144] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:20 pm GMT

For what it’s worth, Pillar got shitcanned and rusticated by Cofer Black, Kiriakou got locked up, Ritter got framed as a pedo, and McGovern got the shit beat out of him by my DoS goons. So shut the fuck up a little, OK?


Mistress Gina

Truth3 , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:30 pm GMT

Explainable in one simple sentence…


Z-man , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:31 pm GMT

So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American soldiers intended to accomplish?

To sound like a broken record again , the CABAL hates Russia and specifically Putin because he re-established Christian Orthodoxy as the de facto state religion of Mother Russia. They would get The USA into a hot war with Russia if it meant hurting Putin, never mind what it would do to us. Their hatred is so strong that they could care less what it would do to America, the snakes that they are.

Dick French , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:40 pm GMT

All Russians would have to do to exploit the current unrest in America would be to knock out a social media platform or two, or perhaps to leak dirt on the people ginning up war. Those targets are absolutely hated by the American people outside the Imperial City.

Richard B , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:45 pm GMT
@Zarathustra and historically illiterate pseudo-intellectual BS about 1619 and Evil America that, because its evil, should change the names of the military bases where those soldiers trained under the impression they were going to defend their country!

The Hostile Elite is a rabid dog so totally out of control it needs to be put down immediately.

Whatever happens, no one should ever take the moral condemnation of psychopaths seriously.

Battered Wife Syndrome?

I give you Battered Nation Syndrome.

Time to prove to the world it’s possible to recover from it and move into a larger freedom.

dimples , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:45 pm GMT
@No Friend Of The Devil not called al-
Qaeda at this stage but some other name. Apparently the name al-Qaeda was first used by the FBI to reference this group due to some sort of misunderstanding, but it eventually became the name they adopted for themselves since that was what everybody was calling them anyway when they became famous after further adventures.

The above should be taken with a grain of salt since this is only what I have been able to glean from reading various articles. Presumably what is called al-Qaeda today are the descendants or associates of personnel from this particular group as opposed to other groups, but I don’t know.

Jake , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:46 pm GMT

When Russia was controlled by Marxists, Leftists and Liberals loved Russia, defended Russia, excused Russia, promoted Russia. Now that Russia has survived Marxist totalitarianism and begun rediscovering Russian cultural heritage, which features Christianity, Leftists and Liberals HATE Russia.

Who coulda thunk it possible?

More important is that our Neocons and our old guard Yank ‘conservatives’ – who control foreign policy for both Republicans and Democrats – in the military and the spy game see Russia today exactly as the Leftists and Liberals see Russia.

Both the Neocons and the Yank WASP Country Club types in the so-called ‘conservative’ arena agree with Leftists and Liberals about Russia.

There’s plenty of meaning there for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Anglo-Zionist Empire.

Beavertales , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:46 pm GMT

The Dem’s election strategists are grasping at straws again.

The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who serve in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by wild tales and false flags.

The “bounty on American soldiers” is hogwash to gin up what they perceive to be a voting bloc of gullible whites.

The Dems weakness with working class whites is one they will try to shore up by crassly fake, flag-waving appeals to bedrock patriotism.

Erzberger , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:47 pm GMT
@anonymous equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

With Russia abolishing serfdom and slavery at the time – and much later than Western Europe – something had to be done to not be outdone by the Russians, of course. The hypocrisy would indeed have been unbearable. It still is.

Jake , says: July 7, 2020 at 12:51 pm GMT
@Really No Shit the mass of whites before the post-WW2 era, then you are ignorant. If you think the current Deep State is entirely Jewish, or even majority Jewish, you are ignorant.

Without any doubt, Jews now, and for decades, have per capita dominated the American Deep State. But they did not create it, nor did they create its evil. The Mossad did NOT create MI6 and the CIA. British Secret Service created the CIA and the Mossad.

America has a Deep State that flowed naturally from the British Deep State. The Brit Empire was the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 1. America is the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 2.

mike99588 , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

Best to let someone else do the dying for you…

US strategy at the end of WWII included letting Germans and Soviets wear each other down and kill as many of each other as possible, without US forces involvement. Obviously “we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the Soviets too much stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20 years.

mike99588 , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:05 pm GMT

Just more Liberal/Dim/Zio/CCP sponsored horsesh*t, to drive US and Russia apart, to drive Russia toward China, when US would be better off trying to treat Russia neutrally (hang our CCP paid dems).

Richard B , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT

The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014, and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic unrest Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917 using the same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”.

Spot on!

But, a more accurate name than The Deep State is Judeocracy Inc.

Ahoy , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:24 pm GMT

Henry when he was running the world. All smiles and happiness for things going well.

Then after this very polite send off Russia is bad, very bad.

Alfred , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:28 pm GMT

followed by Russian assistance to the US military operation in Afghanistan.

Few people seem to understand the logistics of the war in Afghanistan. The US and their allies were hugely dependent on the Russian railway system. It is just so ridiculous to listen to these monkeys who pretend to be statesmen and women.

Susan Rice clearly uses skin whitener and hair straightener to look as much as possible like those she hates so much.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT

Unfortunately, the matter with Russia is settled. And while I did not think there was evidence to support the matter. The current executive sign an intel report that accused the Russians and Pres. Putin specifically with sabotaging US election and murder and attempted murder. Unless our executive can reconcile that matter by extracting some manner of penance for hat behavior — reconciling with Russia is just a flat water tide.

Their actions constituted acts of war and while I may disagree with the assessment —

that is the US disposition on which nothing Russia says can be taken further than a pipe.

That intel report which this executive signed locks our posture in place regarding Russia. We kill people in this country for being suspects.

I don’t think the US citizen would look to kindly on shaking hands with a saboteur and murderer.

Whether the signing was a matter of political expediency is irrelevant,. The executive openly cited Russia as an enemy of the US. For me it was one of the most painful memories of the executives tenure, because

1. destroyed a large portion of our foreign policy agenda of toning down our presence anywhere

2. demonstrated the executive was not as string as I believed he needed to be.

If they were willing to interfere in our election and engage in political murder in allied states —there’s no reason to doubt that they would support the murder of our troops in a conflict one.


It was a devastating moment when the executive agreed to that intel report.

Emily , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT
@tyrone 07110001-8
Latest on the final arrest of Kosovo vile war criminal Thaci a couple of weeks ago
Tom Welsh , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:33 pm GMT
@No Friend Of The Devil iv>

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”.

– Alexander Pope (“Essay on Criticism”)

The MEK is one of many organisations that use the word “mujahidin” in their names. That word is quite generic.

mujahedin (also mujahidin, mujaheddin, or mujahideen)
n plural noun Islamic guerrilla fighters.

from Persian and Arabic mujahidin, colloquial plural of mujahid, denoting a person who fights a jihad.

– Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Z-man , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:35 pm GMT

Agree. See post #49 above.

Emily , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:39 pm GMT
@mike99588 r Germany.
And vastly profiting from both sides – shamelessly.
Britain and the Commonwealth faced Germany alone through dark days indeed until Russia became our ally – before the USA incidently – conveniently overlooked..
The Americans finally came in Dec 1941 after Russia was already standing with us.
It has not been forgotten in Britain to this day.
The USA bled this country for decades, paying for what was so much crap amongst all else..
Lend lease – what a scam that was!!!!!
Whilst you traded and supported the nazi war machine against us.
Jake , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:45 pm GMT

When you work that into the British Empire acting to prevent Russia from forcing the Turks out of Europe and thereby liberating Constantinople, and acting to harm Russia deeply in order to win ‘The Great Game,’ you perhaps will then see that back to Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans that WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.

Gidoutahere , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:51 pm GMT

Well, unlike the JewSA, Russia isn’t enthralled with the Jews. Putin and company kicked out Soros and his Open Society as well as the Rothschild bankers. Lastly the four billionaire Jew oligarchs who were running the Yeltsin economic shitshow were also shown the door. Perhaps the “Assad must go” flop played into Jewish ire as well.

David Rodriguez , says: July 7, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT

Amusing to see Democrats so deeply concerned over the “Russian threat”. I was in the Agency during the Cold War. When the Soviets REALLY were a threat, most of those same Democrats urged retreat, compromise, submission. It makes my guts churn to see these “patriots” making hysterical claims against Russia. It is almost as if they resent the fact that Putin has rejected their entire Globalist plan, re-Christianized Russia, and locked up at least a few of the so-called “oligarchs” who were looting the Russian people of their patrimony. The case of Bill Browder deserves some attention. This Red Diaper baby (his grandfather was Earl Browder, chief of the CPUSA) has been one of the cheerleaders in the campaign to demonize Russia. Following the family tradition of a lack of loyalty (he holds British and U.S. passports, just in case!) this weasel used his granddad’s old Soviet contacts to make hundreds of millions carting off anything of any value left in the old Soviet Union. Of course, he worked with an equally greasy gang of former Soviets to do this, including one Sergei Magnitsky, a “tax advisor” working with Browder who assumed room temperature in a Russian jail after he was nabbed by the tax police. I really wonder if some of these Democrats and others who so denounce Putin had visions of sugar plums and hundreds of millions of dollars dancing in their heads, dreams rudely brought to earth by Putin?

Agent76 , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:08 pm GMT

Follow the CIA drug money!

Oct 20, 2009 Taliban Is Getting American Troops Hooked On Heroin

It diminishes the effectiveness of our troops as well as raises money for the Taliban, who are the ones growing the poppy. How can the US combat this new strategy?

December 3, 1993 Opioid problem America?

The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency

LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials.

June 10, 2014 Drug War? American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium

U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production

Zarathustra , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:15 pm GMT

Very noble endeavor. US Government should be really proud of it.

Agent76 , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:18 pm GMT

Jul 4, 2020 78% of Russians VOTE to break away from western neoliberal dogma

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Thursday that the result was a clear sign of the Russian people’s trust in president Putin.

Alfred , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:24 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc. e accused is served by having his lawyers present. Since the defendants have refused to appear in person – three of them disputing the Dutch jurisdiction — the defence lawyers should withdraw.”


Erzberger , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Emily t was only done to get into a position to share the spoils. Britain was no more than a vassal state of the US after WW I, and in no position to defeat Germany. Only Russia could, and they did, and would have done so with or without the Anglo-Americans. Stop whining about suffering you brought onto yourself. Besides, Britain suffered very little compared to the continent, including Germany, and European Jewry, and all of them would have suffered less without the British arrogance that they had to defend their national honour. Hope they stay out of European affairs now but it doesn’t look good at this fake Brexit moment
ChuckOrloski , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT

Wisely, Agent76 said, “The CIA Drug Connection is as Old as the Agency.”

Re; above, I suggest Grandfathered by Operation Gladio and it’s Vatican Bank money laundering component???

Am aware how an England bank, USBC, was caught laundering the Afghanistan drug trade billions and got a “slap on wrist.”

Linked below is an obscure article on President Putin’s special (on scene) Afghanistan envoy, Zamir Kabulov, who accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of drug trafficking.

Also, my special thanks to commenters, Harold Smith, Franz, and Alfred.

Alfred , says: July 7, 2020 at 2:58 pm GMT
@No Friend Of The Devil to attack Iran. They are totally despised by ordinary Iranians. They are a cult with something in common with the Cambodian Pol Pot way of life. Very dangerous people. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Taliban who are trying to liberate their country from the Americans.

MEK: Who is this Iranian ‘cult’ backed by the US?

Steve from Detroit , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:08 pm GMT

I’m not joking, I initially thought that was Michael Jackson.

ImaBotKnot , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:08 pm GMT
@Gidoutahere ld bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.

“In return, Maxwell’s massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful Kryuchkov, [Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB] who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell’s daughter, as a meeting place between the Russian plotters, Mossad chiefs and Israel’s top politicians. ? Apparently the Rothschilds/Israel Deep State wanted Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

Events are so tangled and interconnected, as Ghislaine is still a Israel Deep State operative.

annamaria , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:15 pm GMT
@anonymous ease the MIC and the Lobby. It is not for nothing that Rice was called “the Typhoid Mary of the Obama-era foreign policy.”
“Her religion is Christianity.” Oh my. What church has been allowing the war criminal Susan Rice to attend religious service next to decent people? This church of anti-Christians: Grace Church Cathedral, 98 Wentworth St., downtown Charleston.
Trinity , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:24 pm GMT

Funny, I don’t see White Russians hating themselves or other Whites for being proud of their heritage.

Funny, I don’t see White Russians tearing down monuments and statues or desecrating their flag.

Funny, I don’t see White Russians wanting their country to be invaded by hordes of hostile nonwhite WMD.

Funny, I don’t see White Russians apologizing or backing down from identifying themselves as a Christian nation.

Oh, I get it. This is why the so-called, “Deep State” and “Neo-Cons aka Neo-Commies” hate Russia so much. I get it now. It burns (((their))) collective asses that there are actually some largely homogeneous and traditional White nations still around who aren’t willingly accepting their own genocide or apologizing for being evil White racists. My gawd, this is my epiphany, this is MY AWAKENING ( shout out to Dr. Duke’s EXCELLENT BOOK), now I know why Russia is so vilified by (((our media.))) (((Our media))) is racist against Whites, and (((they))) hate the idea that a traditional White Christian nation still exists, especially a powerful nation like Russia. Oh dear, how could I be so gullible not to see this one. I’m Irish American and I am told I must hate the Russkies to be patriotic by other patriotic Israel Firsters.

neutral , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:41 pm GMT

It has to do with two things, and only those two things, all other rubbish about “human rights”, “international law”, blah blah blah, is propaganda meant for the common man.

1) Russia is white, that means it can easily be demonized and is demonized.
2) The jews that fled Russia are an especially virulent strain of the jew, their hatred for Russia has few equal.

Mefobills , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:51 pm GMT

Note that the bad actors were anglo-zionists of their day, grabbing with usury. Their understanding of sin was already perverted in that era.

The sin nature of the Jew has spread and become a sect within Christianity, hence Judeo-Christianity and Zionist-Christianity

barr , says: July 7, 2020 at 3:53 pm GMT

Russia is killing US soldiers. Trump’s response is a shameful dereliction of duty
Michael H Fuchs
seems that BBC CNN NYT and Guardian -all are taking their cues from the coteries of Hillary Biden Cotton Rubio.

Agent76 , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:00 pm GMT

Jul 7, 2020 IMF PONZI scheme in Ukraine continues BLM Ponzi scheme boomerang

endthefed , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMT

Maybe someone has already stated the obvious. Regardless of the validity (or lack of) a bounty program; it’d be real hard to affect US troops if there were no US troops in Afghanistan.

Jeff Davis , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:05 pm GMT

Intel community horseshit.

Curmudgeon , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:16 pm GMT
@Erzberger ica and the Balkans.
Fourth, had the Admiral Canaris led traitors not been hiding munitions or sending them to the wrong place, the Soviets may not have recovered even with the US re-supply.

If there is something to yawn about, it is the WWII narrative is tiresome. Stalin wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or Roosevelt. The reality is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. The Italians were of no help, and the Japanese were as much a drain as a resource to Germany. Germany was destroyed to allow the advancement of Marxism, which had already embedded itself in the UK and US.

DaveE , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:18 pm GMT
@Patagonia Man

‘The US has one political party – the business party, with 2 wings.’

Those two ‘wings’ are the Globalists and the Zionists. The Democrats and Republicans are just interns looking for a summer job.

Bill Jones , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT

“If they were willing to interfere in our election and engage in political murder in allied states”

No you fool, we’re talking about Russia, not Israel.

Desert Fox , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:25 pm GMT

The zionists are pissed that Russia has saved Syria from the zionist mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS, which are creations the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATO and so the anti Russian propaganda, pouring out of the zionist owned MSM.

Alfred , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:31 pm GMT

Obviously “we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the Soviets too much stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20 years

The Russians paid for all the “giving” with gold. Kindly stop repeating lies. Even the British went almost bankrupt repaying the Americans for their “generosity”.

It will be interesting to see how the Russians will treat the Americans when the USA experiences feudalism. I suspect the Russians will be far more generous than the Americans deserve.

annamaria , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:35 pm GMT
@neutral kids.
Hilary Clinton has been a very effective butcher of Libyan and Syrian population at large; young children and pregnant women were the greatest victims of Clinton’s subhuman policies.
Susan Rice was good at promoting mass slaughter in Syria, and, along with H. Clinton, S. Rice should be credited with the slave markets in Libya.
Nuland-Kagan helped to make Ukraine into the poorest country in Europe, where zionists and neo-nazis found a complete mutual understanding. So much for holobiz squealing.

What’s wrong with the US? How come that the US society produced these monstrosities?

Harold Smith , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:38 pm GMT

Being that America kills other countries’ soldiers (and civilians) all the time, why can’t Russia (or any other country) do the same thing? What goes around comes around, right?

DaveE , says: July 7, 2020 at 4:49 pm GMT

Some things (Russiagate) are just too silly to bother with.

I agree – except that I’m getting quite a chuckle these days at the sheer, utter desperation of the “Russia did it”, “Saddam did it”, “Bin Laden did it”, “Assad did it”, etc. etc. etc. noise from the crowd who DID do it.

Shlomo is cornered and exposed – and that IS worth the subscription fee to watch, FINALLY.

anonymous [245] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:08 pm GMT

Please at least proofread your gibberish. Some of it might even make sense.

Wally , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:29 pm GMT

“Anyone with half a brain should know that the Americans are in Afghanistan because the Americans control the world trade in narcotics.”

– Yawn. I’ve heard that before, but have seen no proof.

– So use your “half a brain” and give us the proof.

Sorry, Hollywood movies are not proof.

No doubt you’re one of those ‘No Blood For Oil’ types that Zionists love so much.

Trinity , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT

“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.” General (((Wesley Clark)))

Obviously a patriotic “American” General like Mr. Clark has no problem with the racist state of Israel.

Just another COHENcidence? Nah, after finding about “6 million” COHENcidences you start thinking for yourself, stop dropping the idea that “conspiracy theories” are “conspiracies” and start realizing you have been fed a load of horseshit for a century and counting. We don’t have a Russia problem but Houston, we do have a problem. Wonder what that problem is?

Zarathustra , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT

And we have to believe you? {You are a real jerk.)

Mr. Cocktail Party Talk , says: July 7, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh te Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, at a time when that meant something. He also wrote (presumably without the assistance a ghost writer) some 40-odd books, as Tucker Carlson pointed out in a recent monologue.

I think by any standard, these achievements indicate a fairly high level of intellectual skills.

Whether or not he was a nutcase is another matter, and not mutually exclusive of his having considerable intellectual skills. A good place to start on this question is to read what H.L. Mencken wrote about him.

And it is said that Roosevelt is included in the Mt. Rushmore tableau because he was friends with Borglum the sculptor.

Really No Shit , says: July 7, 2020 at 6:31 pm GMT

You retort:

“The Brit Empire was the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 1. America is the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 2.”

I rest my case!

Alfred , says: July 7, 2020 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Trinity of different nations. But they live in harmony. Their common language is Russian. When Putin goes to visit the Dagestan, he tells them that their men are brave and their women beautiful. They love it. And they love Putin for it. Sadly, Google and Youtube seem to have cleaned up this stuff.

Here is some compensatory eye-candy:

Iceland’s Miss Universe has her Siberian roots revealed

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: July 7, 2020 at 6:49 pm GMT

The current news that the Brutish govt has approved new arms sales to Saudia because Saudi mass killings of Yemeni civilians are all “isolated incidents” so it’s quite proper to sell them the means seems to prove your point.

ThreeCranes , says: July 7, 2020 at 6:58 pm GMT

“(You are a real jerk)”. Also sprach Zarathustra.

And this is your idea of a sound argument? Nietzsche would hide his face in shame.

Curmudgeon , says: July 7, 2020 at 7:21 pm GMT
@Zarathustra tinue to ignore the truth.

No. 6 (page 15) from November 4, 1941:

“Your decision, Mr President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the value of $1,000,000,000 to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against our common enemy — bloody Hitlerism.” (here)

Trinity , says: July 7, 2020 at 7:38 pm GMT

Iceland is looking better each and every day especially from behind enemy lines in Negro occupied JawJah.

Anon [127] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:13 pm GMT

The US is in central Asia for much more than that, it’s about blocking China and Russia, as well as partially cutting off Iran on it’s eastern flank. Iran is almost surrounded by US bases. The US wants to have more control point/choke point control over continental transport routes in Asia. (One such prize would be the Dzungarian Gate, but that’s a little too ambitious for the moment. ) Afghanistan does have resources, but it would be a target without them, as it is so valuable as a (potential) transit corridor.

Antiwar7 , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:19 pm GMT
@Robert Dolan

Totally agree. So that gives an estimate of how many people are intelligent.

Larchmonter420 , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:45 pm GMT

Meena talk to me

The most intelligent person ever walked on earth. A walking taking genius like Einstein on earth!

Ace , says: July 7, 2020 at 8:48 pm GMT
@Emily ulture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism" rel="nofollow" href="">Marshall’s doing all in his power to ensure the victory of Mao over Nationalist forces in 1949

U.S. civilian leaders seem to swoon over enemy sanctuaries for some strange reason. Kill U.S. troops in theater. No problemo but pinky swear we won’t go after you if you go back across the border.

God bless Richard Nixon and his destruction of NVA base areas in Cambodia. Thereafter, enemy activity ceased around my camp and all through MR IV.

Zarathustra , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:02 pm GMT

He claims to read the minds of dead people.
That was kind of too much for me.

Moi , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Richard B

The US is a Judeocracy

Moi , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:30 pm GMT

Anybody who believes what “our” government or the MSM tells us an idiot (and/or a regular American).

Truth3 , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:36 pm GMT

Thank you again to Phil Giraldi, for your tireless work to expose the evil with healthy doses of TRUTH.

Moi , says: July 7, 2020 at 9:36 pm GMT
@Ray Caruso

There was no need to qualify Americans by saying American conservatives. Ignorance, stupidity and violence are like apple pie for us.

Emily , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:00 pm GMT

Reading your comment, Wally, I find your name extremely apt.
None so blind as those who refuse to even read.
You can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
You can put all the proof necessary but if you refuse to check it out – well – stay a ‘ Wally’.
I guess you subscribe to the philosophy of ‘Ignorance is bliss’.

Bill Jones , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:02 pm GMT

I found this interview on Putin and what, how and why he’s setting up a post Putin power structure interesting

Would that there was his like in the West.

Erzberger , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:08 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon Wehrmacht, the Warsaw Rising they so strongly encouraged would not have happened, and not have led to the disaster it was for the city and its inhabitants

“Stalin wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or Roosevelt. “ no objections

“The reality is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. “ Much of Europe fought on the side of Germany because they realized that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt weren’t good guys, and they had nothing to look forward to but a horrible peace in case of their victory. Why do you think the EC got together so quickly after the war?

Erzberger , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:20 pm GMT

Also: the sheer idiocy of claiming that poor little “Britain and the Commonwealth” stood alone against the German monster state! Do you ever look at a map? at human and natural resources? This should have been a turkey shoot if your side had not been as lacking in courage as it was, and as incompetent. And if the rest of Europe wasn’t to a very large extent in the German camp, as it is today

Michael888 , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:29 pm GMT

Scott Ritter has a separate article at consortiumnews noting that the Russians have been giving money to the Taliban (AID) to fight Americans, the CIA and their ISIS proxies since 2014. Surely Obama and/or Biden would have stopped these Russian “bounties” if they were important.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 7, 2020 at 10:56 pm GMT

“Please at least proofread your gibberish. Some of it might even make sense.”

The executive in the WH has agreed that Russia sabotaged the US election process and engaged murder and attempted in states of our allies.

There is no turning the clock bank unless Russia makes some gesture of amelioration — there behavior constitutes an attack on the US. As such they are active enemies of the US.

Unfortunately anyone seeking some manner of Russian love fest — should probably forget it. Whether the executive signed for politically expedient reasons simply doesn’t matter.


EliteCommInc. , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:17 pm GMT

“If you believe any of the Skripals nonsense and the MH-17 false flag, you are either gullible or a troll.”

Uhhhh, wholly irrelevant. My position in opposition to the contend that Russia sabotaged the US election was vehemently dubious. My comments at the time make my position abundantly clear. The evidence for the case against Russia in the US simply no there. But at the end of the day, the executive choose to go the other direction. That is unfortunate. But it was also a sign of things to come concerning the executives ability to stand.

And my comments today make that very clear. Your knee-jerk response that I believe what the executive signed onto is incorrect. I knew that his choice destroyed a good deal of his foreign poliy admonition to reduce tensions.

But that was his choice mistake or not he made that choice and as I expressed at the time — we would have to live by it.


In fact, if I were on the opposition, I would like nothing better for the executive to start behaving as though the intel report doesn’t exist. Because I would pull out that report with his signature and commence calling him a weakling, indecisive, and a danger to the US — who is to toothless to hold Russia accountable for her acts of terror in the US and Europe.

I would then commence a campaign explaining why the executive wants to decrease troops ion Europe — he wants to cede our allies over to Russian domination —

But then I am not on the opposition. It was a mistake on the facts for the executive to sign that report for which there was little to no evidence supporting it.

Now if you have a response that gives the president some manner of face saving as he makes nice with a country that overthrew a US election in the US, and engaged in murder and attempted murder — have at it.

Minus some kind of amelioration by the Russians or an about face by the current executive (and tat would really be interesting) no peace and love and understanding can move forward. I can say with certainty

Russia, Pres. Putin has no intention of apologizing for something they most likely did not do regarding US elections.

Though I am sure he will once again have reason to chuckle.

Those of you angry, frustrated, irritated . . . and yada I suggest you take that up with the WH They made that choice.

But by all means name call as opposed to deal with the obvious reality.

anonymous [245] • Disclaimer , says: July 7, 2020 at 11:25 pm GMT

Or not.

Hibernian , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:03 am GMT

You do understand that the US and the UK have been separate sovereigns since 1776, don’t you?

Art , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:28 am GMT

Trump should put on his big boy pants, tell the “Russia Russia Russia” types to go to hell – and schedule a meeting with Putin.

Let the “conservatives” and Jew media poop on themselves.

The voters will love it.

Neoconned , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT

I find it ironic given that during the Soviet era it was those on the left who laughed at Republicans for being Sovietphobes.

But later now its the neolib media pushing the identity politics narrative that has dusted off the tired old Cold War Russia chicken little stuff.

Mefobills , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:38 am GMT

Russia-baiters may also be upset by new Constitution changes in Russia.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:43 am GMT

“Or not.’

The US can not make nice with Russia until Russia makes amends for sabotaging the US election and engage in acts of murder or attempted in murder in the sovereign states of our allies. So says the executive in the WH. In fact he says that Pres. Putin ordered the sabotage and murder.

I think you understand.

There is no way for the current executive to move forward with better relations with Russia without extracting some admission and compensation for sad acts without reaping serious political damage — I would say a loss of credibility, but that is already in question – sadly.

AnonFromTN , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:44 am GMT

Interestingly, whoever invented this lie about Russia and Taliban not only did not know the realities of Afghanistan, but was stupid enough not to consult someone who knows. There is no such thing as a bank transfer in Afghanistan. It exists in the Middle Ages (democracy, my foot!), so the only form of money that functions there is cash, in hand, in a case, or in a bag, depending on the amount.

Art , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:50 am GMT

Serious questions – does the CIA run the State Department and US foreign policy?

Did Pompeo just move the CIA’s agenda to the State Department, when he became Secretary of State?

Who sets US foreign policy – the CIA and the Pentagon? Why are a spy agency and generals running world policy – what good can come of that?

Is Trump the tail on the US foreign policy dog? It seems as though, those two do what they want – not what Trump and his voters desire.

joun , says: July 8, 2020 at 1:23 am GMT

The USA is quickly going to find itself in a corner. There is no realistic path away from a total confrontation with Russia. No politician will dare dissent. I hope Russia is prepared for this.

dimples , says: July 8, 2020 at 1:45 am GMT

“The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who serve in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by wild tales and false flags.”

Well let’s face it, they usually are. These are the milch cows the MIC relies on to keep its funding secure.

Bob Gwen , says: July 8, 2020 at 1:49 am GMT

Everyone knows that Americans are the most dumbfuck stupid people on the planet. It is more shocking to think that propaganda would NOT affect most of the population.

gsjackson , says: July 8, 2020 at 2:27 am GMT
@Emily ass="comment-text">

Anecdotally, when my family lived in England in a village near London in 1957-58 we were treated like royalty. I’ve always assumed it’s because we were the beloved Yanks who saved Britain’s behind in the war. That doesn’t undercut what you say about the underlying resentment, but my clear impression and that of my parents was that the post-war Brits loved them some Yanks.

Another anecdote, this one not so feel-good. In 1956 we lived on Lakenheath AFB in the UK. During the Suez crisis the base was on full stand-by alert in case we had to go to war with Britain. Seriously.

anon [327] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:11 am GMT

In these tough times of toilet paper,
the NYT and WaPo are most useful.

The ink is sustenance for roaches;
the paper is bedding, blanket, headrest,
and ass wipe for the homeless.

Both are well known virus carriers.

Derer , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:33 am GMT
@Patagonia Man re in Washington is beyond repair. The despicable sinister schemes, backstabbing, lies, fake facts in a quest for power has nothing to do with democracy but criminality.

It is time to galvanize support for direct voting…enabled by evolving technology. That process would eliminate:
@ need for electing deceiving proxies that always betray their promises to represent the public interest.
@ Washington proxies making decisions…should be reduced to debating issues.
@ the special interest groups, lobbies self-serving agenda.
@ sending our young people dying on far away places in unnecessary wars.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:48 am GMT
@Patagonia Man

When was Paul Craig Roberts last an insider? Do you think him capable of picking cover stories generically, that is without relevant particular knowledge of inside stuff?

And you seem to claim to have that ability to pick a cover story. So…. how? What are the generic indicia?

anonymous [157] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:50 am GMT

Oh gee, your point would make one think that no other pagan Christian Church has produced such mass murderers, or in fact, even greater ones… which would be ludicrous as per history, yeah?

The real source of such satanic evil should be traced to Whitevil (including their Judevil cousins of course) supremacy and their in-house “niggas,” such as the witch you mention.

Neoconned , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:57 am GMT

Looks like a lot of the blonds here except the ones here date thugs and run around til they’re 24ish from dude to dude til they discover the joys of pills & meth and take the full bath into the toilet….

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: July 8, 2020 at 9:08 am GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse political dancing around and inventing another culprit as criminals always do, successfully disappeared them. Don’t hope they will ever appear again.

And this is the Brutish government that killed another Russian by polonium poisoning and of course invented another culprit, again as criminals always do.

And is now selling weapons for mass killing to Saudia says mass killings are merely incidentals.

Consistently, modern Britain makes Nazi Germany look angelic. Consistently.

These are not Christian moral values. What religion or ritual system or control system acts like this once it takes charge?

anonymous [245] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 10:01 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter, the technique known as “sock puppetry.” See under Mr. Derbyshire’s February 15, 2019, article comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting as “Anon[436].”

Over time, Wizard has emerged as sympathetic to the international bureaucracy of the Establishment of which he may even be a (former?) part, the type of “diplomat” exemplified by Mrs. Nuland’s Ivy League cookie caddy in Ukraine. He broke character a while back, showing emotional hostility to China. But who can be sure? Among this website’s oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.

anonymous [157] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 10:45 am GMT
@No Friend Of The Devil

It does not make sense either, since the MEK ( Mujahudeen ) is a twisted Shiite cult Iranian, and Al Qaeda is Arabic and twisted Sunni cult.

Both of those cults share the same patron… the pagan Christian cult of Whitevil terrorists.

The patron must be destroyed, if we are to destroy other terrorist cults, and for this wretched earth to have any hope of peace.

Patagonia Man , says: July 8, 2020 at 11:25 am GMT

You will find that Roosevelt privately was giving both the UK & France assurances that if either were attacked, the US would come to their aid well before 1938 – even tho’ US multinational corporations were still trading with the NSDAP in Germany well into 1941.

Talk about walking both sides of the street!

geokat62 , says: July 8, 2020 at 12:30 pm GMT

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse

As you can’t even get the Julian Assange bit right I don’t suppose it’s any use asking you to justify your bald assertions or even flesh them our with detail. Let alone explain when Britain became “modern” and ceased to be the country which is rightly credited with ending theslave trade and led the way in abolition of slavery.

Yes, several governments have treated Assange contemptibly but he is remanded without bail pending the resumption of the extradition hearing, not imprisoned for life in cruel or any conditions. How can you waste readers time with such garbage?

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 1:48 pm GMT

How much credit do you give to someone who sloppily uses the term “terrorist in that context referring to the equovalent of precision bombing in contrast to area bombing without precise aiming?

Alfred , says: July 8, 2020 at 2:02 pm GMT

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I am really not qualified to comment on the internal wrangling of the various factions in the USA. I look at their foreign policy actions, not proclamations, with much greater interest.

Alfred , says: July 8, 2020 at 2:06 pm GMT

Oversexed Overpaid and Over Here: The American Airmen In Britain DVD (Timereel)

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 2:14 pm GMT
@Erzberger ut down war industry was started by Germany, arguably in Belgium in August 1814 but certainly in December 1914 when German cruisers indiscriminately shelled three North East England towns. An aberration? No. It was followed by Zepellin raids on London and the use of Big Bertha against Paris. Then, what message and implicit set of rules do you find in the destruction of Guernica? And many civilians were killed in the bombing of Warsaw. Even the virtually symbolic bombing of Berlin was a response to bombs dropped on London, the only point in your favour there being the fact that those bombs were probably not meant to be dropped on London.
Anon [427] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:00 pm GMT

How intriguing. Not having your obsessive interest in warning about Wizard of Oz I have failed, at my level of diligence, to find any evidence at all of emotional hostility to China or indeed, about anything much except perhaps the hypocritical mistreatment of individuals like Julian Assange by governments. Can you help?

geokat62 , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

How much credit do you give to someone who sloppily uses the term “terrorist

The Wizard of Pedantry obsessed about the proper usage of a term, while the offending party is committing acts of war, lol.

Franklin Ryckaert , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT

quod erat expectandum .

Franklin Ryckaert , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Alright then, call it “precision terrorism” (an Israeli specialty). Will that be acceptable to your hasbara boss?

Trinity , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:27 pm GMT

The Germans couldn’t believe how inept the average French, American, and British soldier really were, even British described how frightened many of the America soldiers, most barely old enough to shave, appeared. The German was appalled at the physical fitness of the British soldier as well, describing them as weak and frail for the most part. Here is the truth, Western Europe and America fought the German B team at best, often these Germans were little more than schoolboys in some cases. Everyone knows that the bulk of the serious fighting was done on the Eastern Front. Think if tiny Germany hadn’t had to fight on two fronts against what must have seemed like half the world. It doesn’t speak well that it took so many years to defeat a country as small as Germany, a country that was at an extreme disadvantage. The average Western soldier, be it a Frenchmen, a Brit or an American was nothing special to say the least. This isn’t a I hate America thing, but merely the truth. The average German soldier was head and shoulders above the average Brit or America G.I.

Franklin Ryckaert , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:40 pm GMT

Wizard of Oz = Wizard of Iz.

Grahamsno(G64) , says: July 8, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT

I’m surprised that this hasn’t been posted yet.

Finally, seven days after its ‘scoop’, the NYT ran another story on the subject, entitled ‘New Administration Memo Seeks to Foster Doubts About Suspected Russian Bounties’, which was published on July 3 and buried in the bowels of the paper.

Its opening paragraphs sought to back up the original story, claiming that an intelligence memo had said the “… CIA and the National Counterterrorism Centre had assessed with medium confidence – meaning creditable sources and plausible, but falling short of near certainty – that a unit of the Russian military service, known as the GRU, offered the bounties.”

It was only in the last paragraph that the real story – that there was no story – was revealed: “The agency did intercept data of financial transactions that provide circumstantial support for the detainee’s account, but the agency does not have explicit evidence that the money was bounty payments.”

So the blood libel lasted a week!

One of the greatest things about the Trump Presidency was to carve the ‘Fake News’ meme on the MSM’s forehead.

annamaria , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:03 pm GMT

The US has its comeuppance in the locally-produced “democracy on the march.” The jolly game of regime change is now played in American towns.

Cheney the Traitor and Obama the Fraud are only marginally different. The US is run by financiers and war criminals.

annamaria , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:19 pm GMT

“…there behavior constitutes an attack on the US”

Mister/Miss, since when the zionized Congress of the US serves the citizenship of the US? Thank you for reminding (and you do this regularly) of the unfortunate fact that the US is an occupied territory and the US Congress is a nest of liars, war profiteers, and rabid zionists.

Les Wexler, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, and Clintons have inflicted more harm to the US than any Maria Butin and such. And don’t forget Dick Cheney and Co, the committed traitors and profiteers by any means.

annamaria , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT

Skripals! Well. There was also the Steel dossier and Browder/Magnitsky Act. You certainly have a weak spot for bad forgeries.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:29 pm GMT

In my experience people who are sloppy with language are sloppy with thinking. I thought you might have had similar relevant experience unlike most commenters here. For example, if you were employing a director of research or even just a junior researcher for a committee of inquiry would you not rate their careful use of language as a qualification? You want to be able to rely on the facts they turn up and their reasoning underlying proposed conclusions do you not?

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 4:35 pm GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert

I am content to know that you don’t read my comments and are as sloppy and inaccurate in calling me hasbara as the person who called destroying an Iranian nuclear facility “terrorist”. To extend my last comment, you wouldn’t even be on the long list for assisting any inquiry I chaired.

Derer , says: July 8, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT

Do you know at least, what were you fighting for in Vietnam? How Vietnam threatened US shores?
Do not tell me fighting communist ideology, because the same Nixon and Kissinger that bombed Cambodia civilians embraced that communist ideology in China with grave consequences. We have lunatics in Washington and it is time for direct voting – majority rules.

Erzberger , says: July 8, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz as right in the sense that despite the British and French declaration of war, not much happened – other than the naval blockade and the lame French invasion of the Saar region. Neither Britain nor France had the courage to follow up on their war declaration, for fear of unpopular casualties or further destruction of land and people (France), and both hoped to gain a cheap victory by starving out the German war effort. Had they actually opened a second front in the fall of 39, the Germans would have collapsed, and the war would have been over before Christmas.

The GErman victory over FRance surprised everyone, including the Germans

Curmudgeon , says: July 8, 2020 at 5:59 pm GMT

I think the EC got together so quickly because the US wanted to impose their economic model on Europe with the illusion of control. The Marshall Plan was unraveling as the swindle it was, and the EC was the answer to keep up the illusion. While the UK was in on the scam, they were the front for the Americans, as the idiot Churchill had pissed away the Empire to buy his 15 minutes of fame.
Once the shooting starts there are no good guys. Like all wars, WWII was an economic war. The German economic system could not be allowed to succeed, it was catching on.

Derer , says: July 8, 2020 at 6:00 pm GMT

You must must have quite a deteriorated mind when Russia can influence your vote. Tell me the logistics of the process. You must have equally deteriorated mind believing what CNN, MSNBC, WP or NYT and others dishonest outfits tell you – they are a propaganda machine for a small unpatriotic parasitic group.

anon [178] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 6:09 pm GMT

There is a hierarchy in the blame game . Trump isn’t on the top . If he were, the vile Democrats would be asking review and discussion by broader media ,Dept of Justice and Treasury either to discredit or confirm the following story

in–“Venezuela’s interim government wants access to funds confiscated in the US from corrupt officials, saying it belongs to the Venezuelan people. But US officials appear to have other plans. The Treasury Department diverted $601 million last year from its forfeiture fund to help build President Trump’s border wall. (Leer en español) Since the United States initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected leftist government in January 2019, up to $24 billion worth of Venezuelan public assets have been seized by foreign countries, primarily by Washington and member states of the European Union. President Donald Trump’s administration has used at least $601 million of that looted Venezuelan money to fund construction of its border wall with Mexico, according to government documents first reviewed by Univision Univision reviewed US congressional records and court documents and found that the Trump administration tapped into $601 million of the Treasury Department’s “forfeiture fund” to supplement the wall constructio

Reason no-one is doing it is because hating Trump could always be swapped for worshipping something more sinister and idiotic .

We would have heard a similar story only if Russia extracted something like this from Ukraine or Libya .

Derer , says: July 8, 2020 at 6:10 pm GMT

I suggest you seek treatment for you pathological hate. Russia want to be a friend in peaceful coexistence but it is sinister players in Washington that constantly need/create enemies to build military industrial complexes instead of consumer goods which are supplied from China.

Curmudgeon , says: July 8, 2020 at 6:18 pm GMT

In Iceland she would not be especially good looking, just another face in the crowd.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 8, 2020 at 6:22 pm GMT

“Sorry if I misunderstood you.”

I have been a supported of the current executive before he considered running. And his choice to agree with the intel report and more was a fairly tough pill to swallow. As it turns it was but one of many.

No I found the intel dubious. And I think the executive could have challenged in a manner that did not call the CIA and other agencies DIA, etc. or damage his ability to curtail his policy agenda. But having signed — he essentially states Pres Putin and the Russians are active enemies of the US given that scenario

one would draw on our behavior in Afghanistan hen we supported the Taliban with weapons to kill Russian soldiers —-

tit for tat foreign policy is not new.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 8, 2020 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Trinity fought more effectively and efficiently than the novice American soldiers. Then there were technical factors which were naturally advantageous to the more experienced military. For example the famous 88mm anti-aircraft gin turned anti-tsnk gun was never matched by the Allies (I thin) and the German tactics for its use were also superior. Germany, though less than the Soviet Union had another advantage over Britain and France. It’s population went on growing fast for a generations beyond the end of high growth in Britain and, especially, France. For example there were 2 million Germans born in 1913 to provide young men for the army in the 30s.
Z-man , says: July 8, 2020 at 7:18 pm GMT

Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, the ‘sinister players’, the Judaic NEOCON cabal want to keep America and Russia apart mainly for their hate of Christianity and gentiles, and try to destroy them both.

Erzberger , says: July 8, 2020 at 7:54 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon uld be a return to what was indeed Hitler’s scheme of continental autarky and a more even distribution of wealth, and a democratic model much more in line with the Prussian model, the latter bearing significant resemblance with the Chinese Mandarin system. The Chinese Communists are really doing nothing different than the old emperors running a meritocracy rather than an idiocracy. Western democracies, esp the US, with their insane and horrendously expensive election circuses tend to achieve the latter. I hear Kanye West is running for president now. The problem with China is not Communism but their adoption of Western state-capitalism.
Buck Ransom , says: July 8, 2020 at 9:24 pm GMT
@Art ry in WW2.

I am sure President Putin would be delighted to draw international attention to this new symbol of a Christian resurgence in Russia. President Trump would appreciate the splendor of such a backdrop for his meeting with another major head of state. Many of the Evangelicals among Trumps’s base would be gobsmacked to learn that Mr. Putin is not running a godless, soulless Communist hellstate. And many of people in the US State Department and the rest of the Swamp would utterly sh*t their pants.

A win all around. Maybe the President will do it.

Ace , says: July 8, 2020 at 9:38 pm GMT

True dat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the exceptionals.

And Cheney’s daughter burns the midnight oil in order to keep the pot boiling in Afghanistan. MUST have U.S. troops there to oppose “terrorists” with AKs.

mike99588 , says: July 8, 2020 at 9:55 pm GMT

NYT is a rental rag that always favored Soviets and now CCP, why cite it anymore?

The Russia distraction distracts from Piglosi, Feinstein, Biden, Bushes, congress and corps etc etc being in bed$ with China. With the side benefit of Russian alienation from the US driving Russian goods into the China slaughter house on the cheap.

Ace , says: July 8, 2020 at 10:08 pm GMT
@Derer pants over Assad’s or Gaddafi’s purported authoritarianisms like they’re skunk pie. Eeeww!

You’re right that we have lunatics in Washington but I don’t think “direct voting” is the answer. Devolution plus draconian anti-trust enforcement. crucifixion of the Antifa filth, massive deportations, ending black privilege, brutally honest debate over black failure, draconian anti-vote fraud operations, and naming and neutralizing the role and power of organized Jewry and its wealth seem more likely to get us back on track. Please be more creative then “majority rule.”

Ace , says: July 8, 2020 at 10:26 pm GMT

Jesus. “Choke points” can be dealt with from afar. It takes a while to rebuild railroad bridges. The concept of the Russian and Iranian enemies has worn a little thin these last few days. It’s just assumed that Russia is a malignant force just as it’s universally assumed that “special sauce” is the way to go on McDonalds’ hamburgers. I accept neither proposition.

I want troops on the U.S. southern border not on the “flanks” of Iran or policing “transit corridors” here and there but that’s just me.

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: July 8, 2020 at 10:41 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz a refuses to extradite a woman to Britain for actual homicide. Zero grounds to hold him.

From their political standpoint the safest way out is for Assange to simply die in the maximum-security prison, so the extradition proceedings can simply be dropped. All problems solved.

So, he is in actual fact in prison for life.

Never mind that Britain did something virtuous in the distant past. Today is today. And notice that serial murderers can be friendly and courteous between murders but that nice behaviour doesn’t exonerate them for the murders. Nazi Germany looks angelic relative to the Britain of today.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 8, 2020 at 11:13 pm GMT

“The Gulf of Tonkin “event” was a lie, so there’s that.”

No. It in reality, it was a series of confused messages from the patrol boat. But was used to support a defense of S. Vietnam — the matter is of no consequence. The US was going to defend S. Vietnamese sovereignty regardless of the Tonkin event.

geokat62 , says: July 8, 2020 at 11:38 pm GMT

Must watch interview…



Today on TruNews Rick interviews Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, a free speech alternative to the tyrants at Twitter. They discuss how the Silicon Valley elite use their satanic bias to silence opposition and have a mission to purge Christianity from their platforms.

anon [402] • Disclaimer , says: July 8, 2020 at 11:57 pm GMT

FYI while BLM and RG draw our attention and now RABAS have made all other conspiracies recede into Corona graveyard

( Russia gate and Russia Afghan Bounty American Solider )
Kushner stoke and his DNA repaired the monetary damages back at home of origin .

Israel lobby organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America ($2-5 million), Friends of the IDF ($2-5 million) and the Israeli American Council ($1-2 million) are grabbing huge 100% forgivable loans from the CARES Act PPP program.
According to SBA data released on Monday, Israeli’s Bank Leumi has doled out a quarter to a half billion dollars under the PPP program, despite being called out for operating in the occupied West Bank.
Leumi has given sweetheart deals to fellow Israeli companies Oran Safety Glass (which defrauded the US Army on bulletproof glass contracts) and Energix, which operates power plants in the occupied Golan Heights and West Bank.
This exchange took place today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.

This video clip with additional information is available on IRmep’s YouTube Channel.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book The Israel Lobby Enters State Government. He is director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy IRmep in Washington, D.C. which co-organizes IsraelLobbyCon each year at the National Press Club.

Patagonia Man , says: July 9, 2020 at 12:09 am GMT
– colonial expansion,
– rolling genocide of the Palestinian people, witness 2014 Operation Protective Edge,
– terrorist attacks of neighboring Arab/Muslim states – Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Occupied Territories, Iran & Syria;
– terrorist attacks on Western nations, incl. the UK, the US, & France (since its Parliament voted to recognize Palestine as a state in 2014), and
– sponsoring of terror organizations e.g, ISIS, to continue its proxy war on Syria.
– etc, etc

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Anon [377] • Disclaimer , says: July 9, 2020 at 12:45 am GMT

Because Biblical word “sin” is not understood, it gives cover and sanction for creditors to run wild.

This truth cannot be stressed enough.
True meaning of Sin = Debt

Derer , says: July 9, 2020 at 2:09 am GMT

In addition to Constantinople, years later defending Ottoman remnants in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Christians by “cigar” Clinton and warmonger Blair that introduced the Islamization of Europe.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 9, 2020 at 3:33 am GMT
@Erzberger e lines of making distinctions e.g. between deliberate murder of harmless civilians and forcing choices on them (starve Russian prisoners and ration food to mothers and children e.g.). Of course the choice to get rid of their government and stop the war is unrealistic even in the post Cold War world. What did sanctions on Iran produce?? Just civilian deaths.

** it is only recently that I discovered that it made a big contribution to diverting German effort from the Eastern Front though it is not surprising that Stalin thought the absence of a Second Front in France was meant to help the Germans savage the USSR.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 9, 2020 at 3:50 am GMT
@Patagonia Man he approx dozen Israeli dual citizens he alleges are in the Australian Parliament contrary to the provisions of the Australian constitution.

So, don’t encourage him Geo, by thanking him. That Israeli nonsense is enough to brand him as a nutter.

As to Quadrant, what does it matter that, in the 50s, and maybe till about 1970, it was given some financial support by the CIA? Really, what is the point in the 21st century? Does it matter to current affairs that Robert Maxwell owned the Daily Mirror till the 90s?

If I don’t reply to all the rubbish no one should infer the truth of anything Patagonia Man alleges.

anonymous [157] • Disclaimer , says: July 9, 2020 at 4:12 am GMT

Putin because he re-established Christian Orthodoxy as the de facto state religion of Mother Russia.

You make it sound as if Putin single-handedly guided “mother” Russia from godlessness, to true God-awareness. Lol!

Except, Christianity of all flavours will always remain, Pagan Polytheist Mangods-worship, or Hindooism-lite, or Godlessness.

anonymous [157] • Disclaimer , says: July 9, 2020 at 5:40 am GMT

“Professor” Hudson sounds like a kook.

He takes various commandments of God and distills it into a silly… Debt = Sin. Indeed, it is true that one can take anything and make it fit their delusional way of thought. E.g. the 3 in 1, of the pagan Trinity.

Of course, that does not mean, Usury (extortionate moneylending) ≠ Sin, which it most certainly is.

The Ten Commandments were about debt? A silly interpretation. They are primarily about Monotheism and a righteous way-of-life, and refraining from usury is just one aspect of it.

Christianity got perverted? Yes, it most certainly is a pagan perversion of True Monotheism.

Alfred , says: July 9, 2020 at 5:47 am GMT

In Iceland she would not be especially good looking, just another face in the crowd

Sorry to rain on the parade.

What Have We Won?—Number One For Chlamydia

Alfred , says: July 9, 2020 at 5:56 am GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse

I suspect Assange had to be “put away” in case he leaked documents about the then forthcoming Coronascam. The timing is right.

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: July 9, 2020 at 7:08 am GMT
@Patagonia Man

I don’t always agree with the wizard but your mad ad-hominen attack is beastly nonsense, Patagonia Slug.

Patagonia Man , says: July 9, 2020 at 7:19 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Forever the denialist, thanks for demonstrating the point.

annamaria , says: July 9, 2020 at 10:44 am GMT

“Sure, Poland bears major responsibility for WW 2, and lending themselves to now hosting US nukes and troops to be moved over from Germany signals that they once again have not learned a thing from their past.”
— Stepping on rakes as a national pastime.

annamaria , says: July 9, 2020 at 10:59 am GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse an associated organisation whose stated objective is to ‘maximise support for the State of Israel within the British Liberal Democrat Party’…
Both groups of “Friends of Israel” have been openly disloyal to the UK.
Both groups of “Friends of Israel ” have been actively promoting the rape and destruction of Syria and Libya. The protection and glorification of White Helmets’ murderous jihadis is a nice illustration. Patagonia Man , says: July 9, 2020 at 1:09 pm GMT

@Ann Nonny Mouse

So what kind of self-righteousness is this? I said from my experience

When I want your opinion I’ll ask for it.

In future, don’t comment until you’re specifically addressed.

Franklin Ryckaert , says: July 9, 2020 at 1:17 pm GMT

What British politics urgently needs is a lobby Friends of Britain in all of its political parties.

Erzberger , says: July 9, 2020 at 2:07 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz will be as cruel as the Soviets. Were they wrong?

Spaight claims that drawing the war to the British isles was done in solidarity with the Soviets. This is nonsense but a timely propaganda move at a time when German defeat was assured. Stalin did no fall into that trap. He lknew about Operation Pike and Operation Impossible, and had zero reason to trust the British. Wikipedia has a page on either Operation

Erzberger , says: July 9, 2020 at 2:13 pm GMT

correction: Operation Unthinkable

Erzberger , says: July 9, 2020 at 2:28 pm GMT

True. Victimhood is essential to Polish nationalism, and their last defense against becoming Europeans

Anon [288] • Disclaimer , says: July 9, 2020 at 2:38 pm GMT
@Patagonia Man

Denialist? A careful textual analysis tells me you are saying WoZ denies what you assert, which is that there are about a dozen Israeli dual citizens in the Australian Parliament, contrary to law. Instead of coyly dancing around the issue what about meeting the challenge to name at least some?

Wizard of Oz , says: July 9, 2020 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Erzberger Thanks. Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a position to inflict much damage on Germany. I gather attacks on London from the start were a strategic error by Hitler because the Liluftwaffe should have kept up its attacks on Britisk airfields. Interesting that Albert Speer, in the “World at War” series, said that four more raids like the 1000 bomber raid on Hamburg (or maybe it was Cologne) would have finished the war. Why couldn’t Bomber Command do I it? Maybe it was because Eisenhower won the battle to have bombers diverted to bombing the Pas we Calais (mostly) and Normandie.
Erzberger , says: July 9, 2020 at 3:33 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

“Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a position to inflict much damage on Germany.”


BTW, the Blitz is a misnomer. Blitzkrieg is tactical air support for ground troops. Neither applies to the air attacks on German cities in May 1940, or the German retaliation, several months later, that we know as the Blitz.

Richard Overy though has argued that the German Blitz showed the British how it was done efficiently, so they improved their bombing strategy accordingly afterwards. Whatever

Z-man , says: July 9, 2020 at 5:45 pm GMT

— Stepping on rakes as a national pastime.

LOL!!! Good one.

[Jul 09, 2020] The racket of national security

Jul 09, 2020 |

Grieved , Jul 9 2020 15:59 utc | 8

Back in the CHOICES thread, we had discussion on the US bullying Iran, and the semantics of whether the US was engaging in "war" against Iran. I hope not to get caught up in those semantics again, but here are a couple of good pieces to show the situation.

The latest Renegade Inc episode interviews Gareth Porter, who draws from Smedley Butler and talks about the "racket" of the security state of the US, which acts only to perpetuate and extend itself, and to increase its funding by all means.

The racket of national security

The episode answers several questions about the US posture towards Iran. Porter supplies the history and background to illustrate the US anger for Iran. Sharmine Narwani makes an appearance also, and together they show why the Pentagon will never conduct acts of war against Iran that will provoke the kind of overt retaliation that Iran delivered by targeting the US bases this year.

The US will only conduct acts that Iran will not overtly respond to. It will escalate its theater right up to that red line, but if it crosses the line - as it did with killing Soleimani - it will be by miscalculation. The only purpose of the US security state is to escalate the threat level to keep the funding coming, and to leave no possible margin for de-funding by Congress. It's a racket, and the racket has swallowed all statecraft.

Once I suggested seriously that Ukraine could not be understood in terms of statecraft, but only in terms of thievery. It becomes increasingly clear that the tenets of organized crime are now the only way to parse US action.


Iran meanwhile, lives by statecraft. It will always respond when that red line is crossed - always and without hesitation. My view is that Iran is continuously working for the total departure of the US from West Asia, as it said that it would in retribution for Soleimani. Much of what it does we don't see, but I note the "resistance" axis goes from strength to strength in solidarity. It was ready to erupt when Iran attacked the US base, but the US disengaged and this unified axis of several nations and forces stood down.

So the school of thought presented for example by Richard Steven Hack here, that the US will war on Iran for decades if it can, simply to feed the MIC, is correct. What's not correct is that the US can perform much in the way of military action against Iran.

We stumbled over the word "war" so perhaps we can talk about minor activities of warfare, which are not enough to bring the theater to full battle. All the nations in the region have tolerated US incursions because to fight them head on would provoke escalation that serves less purpose than living with them - there is a time for everything.

But we have to understand the red lines. And we have to understand that because we see nothing moving, it doesn't mean nothing is moving. Narwani makes some good points about that - and see her full interview on Renegade from last year for a good understanding of what Iran is as a nation and an adversary. It's clear that the Pentagon agrees with her.

As to the Resistance axis, this interview with Lebanese analyst Anees Naqqash is worth a quick read. It tells us much about Lebanon.

US should know 'Resistance' now controls all of West Asia: Naqqash

It is not the case that Iran is doing nothing in response to US warfare against it and its regional allies. The red flag is still flying, and the Iranians take it seriously.

[Jul 07, 2020] War is no longer about winning. Endless conflict is the name of the game. Military defense contractors are the most influential of all lobbyists

Jul 07, 2020 | , Jul 7 2020 2:06 utc | 99


War is no longer about winning. Endless conflict is the name of the game. Military defense contractors are the most influential of all lobbyists and so intertwined in government that it's truly & effectively fascist. Profit is the end, war is the means.

Jackrabbit , Jul 7 2020 2:28 utc | 102

Wait ... what?
<> <> <> <> <>

IMO Trump has started wars but the countries and peoples he picks on know that it's best not to respond too forcibly or they invite greater damage.

I'm surprised that moa commenters give any credence to the claims that portray Trump as peaceful/peace-loving. In addition to his belligerence, Empire front-man Trump has initiated a huge military build-up, ended long-standing peace treaties, and militarized space.


Edward , Jul 7 2020 2:56 utc | 106

This is the standard Washington rhetoric that accompanies their coup attempts. It is a companion to the "moderate democracy" rhetoric about U.S. satellite governments like Saudi Arabia. The rhetoric tells you that these people have zero interest in democracy, honesty, or avoiding hypocrisy. Some of Bush's neocons are Biden Supporters; what a surprise.

Don Bacon , Jul 7 2020 3:13 utc | 108

@ Jackrabbit 102
re: Isn't USA effectively at war with Venezuela?. . .etc
Obviously you don't know jack about actual war, do you.
Or give us your creds?

Grieved , Jul 7 2020 4:28 utc | 109
I dropped back in to see what follows...imagine my deflation to find that people don't know what war is.

@108 Don Bacon

Precisely. No one who has ever experienced the tragedy of war will ever mistake the playground games of make-believe war with the real thing.


That's the problem with the US administration, and its satraps and the many camp followers and court jesters who follow it. They don't know the difference between posturing war and waging war.

The difference is so profound that it calls for not only a new language but a new departure point of reference within one's soul even to begin to speak of such things.

The US will pursue the make-believe war it postures through in order to score points within its small group circle. But real war, should it ever come to touch it - and it will if it pursues its childishness too far - will shock it into total frozen fear the moment that it strikes.

Iran knew this, and had the human strength to test it and to prove it. Everything else, up to this point, was an accommodation by the world's nations to the posturing of the US for its own internal coherence. It was a matter of supporting the US ego rather than of being close to the event when that ego falls apart, with potentially explosive consequences.

But Iran had the strength of character to stand on its principles, and to proclaim its truth. And by the way, that stand is by no means done, despite what the trolls may suggest. Iran has barely begun its action to remove the US from Southwest Asia, and we will only see the footprints of its actions as we realize that the US has departed. And this will happen, regardless of the US narrative and its many parrots.


I don't blame the US or any of its supporters for threatening war when all it really does is act as a nuisance and a spoiler in those few platforms left to it. Those it oppresses have so far mostly chosen to bear the insult rather than to make a fuss. But Iran has shown the way, and one should not expect many more of those oppressed to put up with the abuse from the US many more times.

What is clearly known is that the very last thing the US can do is go to war, in the real meaning of that term. The very last thing the US is capable of, is war. And the generals of all the nations of the world know this because they have seen the proof of it. Anyone who doesn't see the proof of it is behind the curve, and may well have license to comment here and elsewhere, but fortunately does not sit in the security councils of the nations of the world.


If anyone wants to think that the US is "effectively" at war with another nation, then consider that Iran is absolutely "effectively" at war with the US, just as Hezbollah is beyond any doubt at war with Israel. And so what? When positions are "effectively" this or that, then they had better produce "effective" results. And it is only from these effective results that we can count the coup of the engagement. Hezbollah and Iran don't need to be told the difference between real attacks and propaganda attacks.

What they count is the real force.

Everything else is bluster. And I was 16 years old myself once, so in all humility I don't condemn this braggadocio, which I understand all too humanly.

But neither do I take it as real in the real world.

Don Bacon , Jul 7 2020 4:47 utc | 110
@ Grieved 109
Thanks for helping to deliver us from all that illusory make-believe on war from the deep thinkers who apparently man this place. And yes, Iran has shown the way, which includes its ability to put a serious hurt on US forces if attacked. We're talking about the possibility of lots of US dead bodies, military and dependents, men women and children, also sunken ships, and not just some supporting proxies and aerial bombing with the attendant publicity that suggests to some that genuine war exists, when it doesn't.
People need to get real.
Jackrabbit , Jul 7 2020 5:26 utc | 112

Trump is really no different than Clinton, GWBush, and Obama. Each a front-man for the Deep State/Empire. Each portrayed as well-meaning, peace-loving men that were FORCED! to war for all the right reasons. In that context, these Jedi mind-tricks fall flat:

Mao , Jul 7 2020 5:52 utc | 113

With only four months left to the U.S. presidential elections, and the increasing likelihood of Donald Trump, the most pro-Israel President in history, losing, Israel has been trying to provoke Iran to start a war, so that it can drag the United State into it. This is not anything new. For over a decade Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to force the United States to go to war with Iran, and Israel itself almost attacked Iran three times between 2010 and 2011. But the with events of the last several months darkening the prospects of a second Trump term, Israel feels a new urgency for a war with Iran.

For over two years Israel tried to provoke Iran by attacking Iranian-backed Shiite forces in Syria, but Iran has opted not to retaliate. Since the attacks did not provoke Iran to retaliate, and also failed to dislodge Iran's military advisers and the Shiite forces that it trained, armed, and dispatched to Syria, Israel has seemingly turned to attacking Iran directly within its borders.

The events of past two months in Iran are indicative of Israel's new push for war. These events include large-scale infernos, explosions, and cyberattacks, all believed to have been carried out by Israel and its Iranian proxies, the "fake opposition" which is the part of the opposition that supports economic sanctions and military attacks against Iran, and has even allied itself with small secessionist groups that carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.

Mao , Jul 7 2020 6:23 utc | 114

In this video, Prof. Wolff talks about the breakdown of the capitalist system and outlines 4 major problems that the US has been faced with without for quite some time with no solution in sight: climate change, capitalism's intrinsic instability, systemic racism inherited from slavery, and lastly the lack of mechanisms to manage viruses.

In this video, Prof. Wolff compares and contrasts the preparation for and management of COVID-19 with how the US has managed military preparedness and the handling of military confrontations and activities. It has succeeded at one and completely failed at the other. He explains why.

AskProfWolff: How the Fed Serves Capitalism

Richard Steven Hack , Jul 7 2020 6:36 utc | 115
Posted by: Grieved | Jul 7 2020 1:09 utc | 96 Prediction: The US may start a war but the US will not finish that war. Its opponent will end that war, by causing unacceptable losses to the US - something quite easily achieved, and already proved to the world by Iran in this very year of 2020.

I agree. The US can not defeat Iran, short of nuking Tehran, which is not in the cards for geopolitical reasons. However, the US can devastate much of Iran's civilian infrastructure, which, like most such infrastructures, can't run and hide. The US can also kill a million or two milllion Iranians, as it proved in Iraq.

All that will do, however, is merely guarantee that Iran will never surrender. Nor would Iran ever surrender in the first place. Which is why I tend to reference the upcoming war as the "New Thirty Years War". The clear example is the near twenty years we've spent in Afghanistan - which is vastly weaker than Iran. Each war - Vietnam, Afghanistan, and arguably Iraq - has lasted longer than the last and with failure as an outcome.

The US can keep attacking Iran from the air and sea for thirty years - but without ever defeating Iran. It will do so because the military-industrial complex will make profits every year from that war - and in the end, that's all that matters to the US (along with the

Only if the US tries a land invasion will the US lose a massive number of troops. But even that will come over time, albeit at a *much* higher rate than the US saw in either Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. US annual casualties would probably be in the low to medium 5 digits per year, as opposed to the low 4 digits in most of those wars. In other words, four or five times the rate in Iraq. That's as compared with a hot war in North Korea which would see 50,000 US casualties in the first ninety days, or any war with China or Russia. See "United States military casualties of war" on Wikipedia. It's possible that casualties could rise to the level of WWI, if the war lasts five or ten years, or even WWII if it lasts twenty - or even higher if it lasts thirty.

Most people think the US will not try a land invasion. I've argued, however, that the *only* way to even attempt to prevent Iran from closing the Straits for the duration of the war will be for the US to put several score thousand Marines and US troops on Iran's shores to attempt to prevent launching of mines and anti-ship missiles. This would be difficult since Iran has a long Persian Gulf shoreline, Iran has fortified that shoreline, there are many places to launch weapons from that shoreline - and any such US troops would be subject to both conventional and guerrilla war by the Iranian military and perhaps a million or more Iranian Basij militia. Nonetheless, the US is likely to be dumb enough to try.

In any event, the US will eventually be forced to withdraw either because the US electorate would eventually tire of the war - although as Afghanistan proves, that could take a *very* long time, mostly depending on the casualty rate, however, as I indicateed - or because another "threat" takes precedence, which would likely mean either Russia or China.

"And the US will strain its mighty Wurlitzer to the utmost to declare victory as it retreats."

Yup. And the sad part is that the US electorate will probably believe that, then forget about the reality and be willing to commit to a new war within another ten years.

Jackrabbit , Jul 7 2020 6:36 utc | 116
Mao @Jul7 5:52 #113

increasing likelihood of Donald Trump, the most pro-Israel President in history, losing

1) The USA establishment are all pro-Israel.

2) Biden has proclaimed himself a Zionist.

3) In 2016 all the polls had Clinton ahead.

Fake populist outsiders (like Trump) have to be shown to defeat the establishment. That helps to sell them as being on the side of the people.


Richard Steven Hack , Jul 7 2020 7:00 utc | 119
In addition to the above, the idea that because there's a difference between "war" and "conflicts before war" there is *no chance* of war is absurd.

Every war started with this sort of enmity between nations historically. As I've said before, with this level of enmity between the US and Iran, and arguably between the US and Russia, and the US and China, war is inevitable. With the latter two countries, such a war is likely to be nuclear - which is why it hasn't happened yet - that risk is *way* too high (although it can still happen if a miscalculation causes a conventional war, which then escalates into nuclear.)

A war with Iran doesn't have that risk. No nuclear power that I am aware of is going to enter the war on Iran's side and thus risk a nuclear war over Iran. Iran itself will not develop or use nuclear weapons. Israel *might* consider using nuclear weapons against Iran - that would be a*huge* mistake geopolitically and probably result in Israel's destruction by geopolitical means if not by military means. But neither Russia nor China are going to directly engage the US military to defend Iran. That would be stupid and putting their own national survival at risk for the benefit of another nation. As Percival Rose would say, "That ain't gonna happen."

The real problem for some people is cognitive dissonance. They can't emotionally accept the possibility of these wars occurring - so they don't. They are reduced to saying, "well, it hasn't happened...yet."

The "yet" is the operative term. There is no logical extension of that term to mean "never".

Jackrabbit , Jul 7 2020 7:03 utc | 120
Richard Steven Hack @Jul7 6:36 115

There are many other mistaken assumptions, such as:

arby , Jul 7 2020 11:59 utc | 123

IMO, the word "WAR" means two sides are fighting.

What is plain to see is all of these "wars" are not wars but provocations, aggression from one side and bullying. In every case the other side does not want a war.

Interesting how the US has way upped its aggression on Venezuela without a peep from the people. This started off with some nonsense about an idiot named Guaido and is now full blown nastiness.

Digital Spartacus , Jul 7 2020 12:59 utc | 125


Sadly they are not the only stooges. It beggars belief that people everywhere believe that they can elect someone to change the system in the country in which they reside. Political stripes have very little meaning as the differences are incremental at best. The bureaucracies necessary to keep the modern systems of governance afloat are staggeringly monolithic. Electing one individual, or party, or parties and presuming that the system will somehow be improved upon is a laughable fantasy. It leads to a continuous cycle of four years of initiatives to tear down the previous four years initiatives unless you're a second term government. But actual change is still the sole purview of the entrenched bureaucracy or "deep state" or whatever other label you prefer. To Jackrabbit's point, most decisions hinge on whether or not the bureaucracies in charge believe a war, a social change etc. can be implemented and a desired result achieved. It takes a finely developed sense of myopia to think that the only stooges are those of the political class. Says volumes about the people that put them there, and continues to suggest that they are electing "change".
As an aside, the Frank Zappa quote that "government is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex" remains potently poignant.

arby , Jul 7 2020 15:52 utc | 134

Calling what the US is doing to these countries "war" is like saying that Floyd was in a fight with the cop's knee.
Yes,there has been some very measured retaliation from some of the victims, but it amounts to Floyd saying he can't breathe.

PleaseBeleafMe , Jul 7 2020 16:11 utc | 135

@450 132
The provocations and responses of the formation of a war with Iran have been very interesting and I think that if Iran hadn't of shot down the Ukrainian airliner after their attack against the American base we may have already or continue to witness that war. As I see it there was a real hard on to go after Iran but word of the shoot down allowed the Don to pull back and let Iran suffer the black mark without escalation.
There are way too many itchy trigger fingers and pretexts for this and that can be easily engineered and sold to the masses. Helps Biden or whomever if he can blame the future cluster fuck on cleaning up donnies mess. I expect something expectedly unexpected in the coming months. , Jul 7 2020 16:59 utc | 139


War is not a static proposition and its meaning and definition can and should change over time to fit the prevailing military strategies and economic paradigm of the day. We don't live and operate in an unassailable lexicon vacuum. War is not defined tautologically, meaning, war is not war. War is many things and can be fought on many dimensional fronts, meaning not just militarily.

Jackrabbit , Jul 7 2020 17:25 utc | 144

arby @Jul7 17:12 @141

I think war is a state of mind. That's why we talk about "the war on poverty" or a "propaganda war".

You might say that there is a "Cold War" but the number of acts of war is too numerous for that and targeted at multiple countries/peoples. It's more like a 'hybrid war' on everyone that opposes the New World Order that the AZ Empire seeks to impose on the planet.

Importantly, you can't prevent war if you only start thinking of it as 'war' when the shooting starts.


[Jul 05, 2020] Some Conspiracy Theories Are for Real by Philip Giraldi

Jul 05, 2020 |

What is the best way to debunk a conspiracy theory? Call it a conspiracy theory, a label which in and of itself implies disbelief. The only problem with that is there have been many actual conspiracies both historically and currently and many of them are not in the least theoretical in nature. Conspiracies of several kinds brought about American participation in both world wars. And however one feels about President Donald Trump, it must be conceded that he has been the victim of a number of conspiracies, first to deny him the GOP nomination, then to insure that he be defeated in the presidential election, and subsequently to completely delegitimize his presidency.

Prior to Trump there have been numerous conspiracy "theories," many of which have been quite plausible. The "suicide" of Defense Secretary James Forrestal comes to mind, followed by the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which has been credibly credited to both Cuba and Israel. And then there is 9/11, perhaps the greatest conspiracy theory of all. Israel clearly knew it was coming, witness the Five Dancing Shlomos cavorting and filming themselves in New Jersey as the twin towers went down. Also the Saudis might have played a role in funding and even directing the alleged hijackers. And we have also had the conspiracy by the neocons to fabricate information about Iraq's WMDs and the ongoing conspiracy by the same players to depict Iran as a threat to the United States.

Given the multiple crises currently being experienced in the United States it is perhaps inevitable that speculation about conspiracies is at its highest level ever. To the average American it is incomprehensible how the country has become so screwed up because the political and economic elite is fundamentally incompetent, so the search for a scapegoat must go on.

There are a number of conspiracy theories about the coronavirus currently making the rounds. Those libertarians and contrarians who choose to believe that the virus is actually a flu being exploited to strip them of their liberties are convinced that many in the government and media have conspired to sell what is essentially a fraud. One such snake oil salesman persists in using an analogy, that since more Americans are killed in automobile accidents than by the coronavirus it would be more appropriate to ban cars than to require the wearing of face masks.

Another theory making the rounds accuses Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates of trying to take over the world's healthcare system through the introduction of a vaccine to control the coronavirus, which he presumably created in the first place. The fallacy in many of the virus "conspiracies" that relate to a totalitarian regime or a crazy billionaire using a faux disease to generate fear so as to gain control of the citizenry is that it gives far too much credit to any government's or individual's ability to pull off a fraud of that magnitude. It would require people a whole lot smarter than the tag team of Trump-Pompeo or even Gates to convince the world and thousands of doctors and scientists that they should lock down entire countries over something completely phony.

Other coronavirus theories include that the virus was developed in the U.S., was exported to China by a traitorous American scientist, weaponized in Wuhan and then unleashed on the West as part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and democracy. That would mean that we are already at war with China, or at least we should be. Then there is the largely accepted theory that the virus was created in Wuhan and escaped from the lab. Since that time Beijing has been engaging in a cover-up, which is the conspiracy. It is a theme favored by the White House, which has not yet decided what to do about it beyond assigning funny "Yellow Peril" names to the disease so everyone in MAGA hats will have something to chuckle about leading up to the November election.

But all kidding aside, there are some conspiracy theories that are more worth considering than others. One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations that he controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States. The allegations against Soros are admittedly thin on evidence, but conspiracy mongers would point out that that is the mark of a really well-planned conspiracy, similar to what the 89 year-old Hungarian Jewish billionaire has been engaging in for a long time. The current round of claims about Open Society and Soros have generated as many as 500,000 tweets a day as well as nearly 70,000 Facebook posts per month, mostly from political conservatives.

The allegations tend to fall into two broad categories . First, that Soros hires protester/thugs and transports them to demonstrations where they are supplied with bricks and incendiaries to turn the gatherings into riots. Second, that Open Society is funding and otherwise enabling the destabilizing flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

Soros and his supporters, many of whom are Jewish because they think they see anti-Semitism in the attacks on the Hungarian, claim to support democratization and free trade worldwide. He is, in effect, one of the world's leading globalists. Soros claims to be a "force for good" as the cliché goes, but is it completely credible that his $32 billion foundation does not operate behind the scenes to influence developments in ways that are certainly not democratic?

Indeed, Soros accumulated his vast fortune through vulture capitalism. He made over $1 billion in 1992 by selling short $10 billion in British pounds sterling, leading to the media dubbing him "the man who broke the bank of England." He has been accused of similar currency manipulation in both Europe and Asia. In 1999, New York Times economist Paul Krugman wrote of him that "Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit."

Far from a passive bystander giving helpful advice to democracy groups, Soros was heavily involved with the restructuring of former communist regimes in eastern Europe and had a hand in the so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014, both of which were supported by the U.S. government and were intended to threaten Russia's regional security.

Soros particularly hates President Vladimir Putin and Russia. He revealed that he is far from a benevolent figure fighting for justice in his March Financial Times op-ed (behind a pay wall) entitled "Europe Must Stand With Turkey Over Putin's War Crimes in Syria."

The op-ed is full of errors of fact and is basically a call for aggression against a Russia that he describes as engaged in bombing schools and hospitals. It starts with, "Since the beginning of its intervention in Syria in September 2015, Russia has not only sought to keep in place its most faithful Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It has also wanted to regain the regional and global influence that it lost since the fall of the Soviet Union." First of all, Russia did not "intervene" in Syria. It was invited there by the country's legitimate government to provide assistance against various groups, some of which were linked to al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that were seeking to overthrow President al-Assad.

And apart from Soros, few actual experts on Russia would claim that it is seeking to recreate the "influence" of the Soviet Union. Moscow does not have the resources to do so and has evinced no desire to pursue the sort of global agenda that was characteristic of the Soviet state.

There then follows a complete flight into hyperbole with: "Vladimir Putin has sought to use the turmoil in the Middle East to erase international norms and advances in international humanitarian law made since the second world war. In fact, creating the humanitarian disaster that has turned almost 6 million Syrians into refugees has not been a byproduct of the Russian president's strategy in Syria. It has been one of his central goals." Note that none of Soros's assertions are supported by fact.

The Soros op-ed also included a bit of reminiscence, describing how, "In 2014, I urged Europe to wake up to the threat that Russia was posing to its strategic interests." The op-ed reveals Soros as neither conciliatory nor "diplomatic," a clear sign that he picks his enemies based on ideological considerations that also drive his choices on how to frame his ventures. Given all of that, why is it unimaginable that George Soros is engaged in a conspiracy, that he is clandestinely behind at least some of the mayhem of Antifa and Black Lives Matter as well as the flood of illegal immigration that have together perhaps fatally destabilized the United States?

Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website July 2, 2020 at 1:37 pm GMT

For those unfamiliar with the Soros/Israeli/CIA coup in the Republic of Georgia, here is a short video:

JasonT , says: July 2, 2020 at 1:42 pm GMT

...These, and Soros, are the front men. The real brains are hidden from sight.

A123 , says: July 2, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMT

One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations that he controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States.

Reg Cæsar , says: July 2, 2020 at 3:22 pm GMT

Instead of fairly distributing the wealth created by globalisation, Soros argued, capitalism's "winners" failed to "compensate the losers", which led to a drastic increase in domestic inequality – and anger.

Sounds like many of the "populists" here.

Trinity , says: July 2, 2020 at 5:09 pm GMT

I know it is just a "conspiracy theory" that people like George Schwartz aka George (((Soros))) are funding these riots, but if this "conspiracy theory" were indeed true, why aren't Soros and his (((cohorts))) at least under investigation for treason and murder charges.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 2, 2020 at 6:35 pm GMT

"Sounds like many of the "populists" here."

I am not a populist. But the contention (s) you are referring to are no really the argument -- not by content.

The argument is that the suppose winners were and continue unfairly leverage the economic system with the help f government to avoid the consequences of their miscalculations, sometimes innocent, often careless and sometimes deliberate machinations.

That is quite a different argument than the winners should share more --

And as much as a capitalist as I am am -- I admit that there are goings on which violate the rules of capitalism as well as common decency.

UncommonGround , says: July 2, 2020 at 8:07 pm GMT

I didn't know that Soros could be so explicit about what he thinks about Putin and Syria and involve himself so concretely with such questions, about which he probably doesn't know very much (in the last times there have been very interesting articles about Syria, for instance, see links below).

Even though, I don't think that he has anything to do with BLM and the protests. Riots and revolts have happened other times without the coordination of people from outside. It happened in 1381 in England. A few years ago it happened in the UK and earlier it happened in the US, (I think when there was a blackout). Now it happened spontaneously in Stuttgart in Germany (apparently).

Why shouldn't people complain about the militarisation of the police which uses brutal methods to arrest people, a police which acts as if they had occupaied a country and had to contain a population of enemies?

The most recent conspiracy was the one to oust Corbyn (the text is relatively short):

The killing of Jeremy Corbyn
Peter Oborne and David Hearst

The former Labour leader was the victim of a carefully planned and brutally executed political assassination

About Syria, an important text by an expert, long:

The Salafist Roots of the Syrian Uprising
by William Van Wagenen

Syria: Old Pretexts, New Sanctions, Still Counterproductive
by Bas Spliet

Meena , says: July 3, 2020 at 11:25 pm GMT

" Wall Street Journal reported Friday that following the drone strike on Soleimani last week, Trump told unspecified associates "he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate."

From any angle ,this will look like a conspiracy . But talking about it to portray the existential crisis of USA politics ,a science of checks and balances, media responsibility and the mechanism in place to make this sort of events to happen will be labeled as conspiracy theory .

What is this.?
1 Impeachable offense
2 who will raise the issue? Media, Congress, Government agencies and activist judges .
They don't why ?
3 Who will investigate ? Dept of Justice.
Why they don't ?

4 would it be a conspiracy theory had Trump not shared the quid pro quo? Absolutely .

5 who is keeping quiet on the initiation of war illegal war to gain personal favor by Trump and who is asking war on Iran ? Same gaggle of smiley faces – Bolton to Kristol to Cotton to Lindsey to Pelosi to Biden to Sherman Engle , Schumer , Cheney( the cow ) , sage Bush jr, Hillary and same gallery of rogues like NYT BBC CNN FOX MSNBC .

6 is there a possibility of a war initiated by Trump to make last ditch effort to win election? Yes.

Bolton recently and , Deniis Ross have suggested to Obama to get out of bad poll number before ,
Economist Rubiono has suggested before as was shared by zerohedge sometimes back.

7 Why does conspiracy theory keep on returning ? Because the first appearance is never pushed back exposed and vilified by any body .
8 How do one evaluate and understand the fate accompli ? They don't . They shrug and move on as they did after Suleimnai killing and wait for next disavowal of any "conspiracy theory before confidently shrugging off the fait accompli.

9 What do you call them? Zombie human slaving away their lives
to harakiri.

Geowhizz , says: July 4, 2020 at 4:12 am GMT

So Soros broke the pound back in the day. Why did MI6 not kill him?

Thomasina , says: July 4, 2020 at 9:33 am GMT

I've often wondered about Soros. Was he a wealthy man before he "broke the Bank of England"?

I've also wondered how it is possible that someone like Soros would have been allowed to break the Bank of England. Was it just a set-up to provide him with plausible funds in order to make him look legit?

He gets written up as some ideological billionaire who acts in accordance with his conscience, but to me he looks like he's working for the ruling elites and the CIA.

Truly benevolent people (which I'm sure Soros is not) don't go around causing the chaos he does.

Anon [413] Disclaimer , says: July 4, 2020 at 9:48 am GMT

There are many videos about Soros' purported influence on world events but very few books. An interesting one is "Soros rompiendo España" by an internationalist and academic of the Universidad Complutense of Madrid.

It badly needs an editor to make it less boring, but it traces and documents Soros financing and tactics in the case of Cataluña. Basically creating NGOs to mobilize civil society to a pitch, while providing content and tactics. Creating grass roots pressure to change policy and break up one of Europes oldest nation-states. Such a network has the advantage of flexibility, it can ebb and flow as required.

What is different from Europe's 19th Century instability? Well, that one's to ponder. But it seems to me it is:
1) independent of Perfidious Albion or any central government. Unless it's Bilderberg, of course.
2) requires no high level assassinations (king and prime minister of Italy, King and Queen of Serbia, multiple Habsburgs, etc). Orban and Salvini are alive and well. Trump will lose, but continue playing golf.
3) not about the self-determination of oppressed peoples, that is, not about nationhood.

There seem to be non-stop programming exercises to achieve and direct mass activism across the West: immigration into Europe and US, Cataluña protests, green St Greta protest, feminist protests, Covid confinement, BLM. These last four, in the past TWO years. The generational divide cemented during Covid is something to watch, I've seen videos in French and Spanish about the "life lessons" of the pandemic that seed this idea.

The next step in this Ordo ab Chaos stumps me.

UncommonGround , says: July 4, 2020 at 10:19 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz n't Stop Until They Get Their War With Iran

– Op-Ed: The neocons: They're back, and on Iran, they're uncompromising as ever

– The Neoconservative Obsession with Iran

– Is Tehran Back in the Crosshairs of the Neocon Crusade?

– Next Stop, Tehran: The Neoconservative Campaign for War in Iran

About the other theme you ask about, I don't believe that it's possible to investigate it properly, but anyway:

– 5 Israelis Detained for Puzzling Behavior' After WTC Tragedy (Yossi Melman, Haaretz)

– Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 .. (the Herald)

Really No Shit , says: July 4, 2020 at 11:08 am GMT

Some say that Soros is a Rothschild agent, just as Wilbur Ross is claimed to be by others, and the Bank of England is most likely the Nathan Rothschild agent, therefore, a question arises: how can an operative of an outfit be the buster of that very outfit? It's like saying a pizza parlor owned by the mafia was cleaned out of pies by one of its very own goons.

[Jul 02, 2020] Bill Browder, a Billionaire accused of being a Fraud and Liar by John Ryan

Jul 02, 2020 |

William "Bill" Browder has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past decade. A few months back, Der Spiegel published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky but the mainstream media completely ignored this report and so aside from Germany few people are aware of Browder's background and the Magnitsky issue which resulted in sanctions on Russia.

Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management was rated as extremely successful after earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December 2007.

During the corrupt Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US $25 million, Browder amassed a fortune . Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to 2006 his Hermitage firm eventually grew to $4.5 billion .

When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities he portrayed himself as an anti-corruption activist and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However, an examination of Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveals contradictions with his statements to the public and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking corruption in Russia.

Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian companies to adopt Western-style governance, it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized companies he was targeting for takeover. Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in a company he would resort to lawsuits against this company through shell companies he controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To prevent its collapse the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it, causing its stock market to rise -- with the result that Browder's profits would rise exponentially.

Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant Magnitsky acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5% instead of the 35% that foreigners would have to pay.

However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign companies and citizens from purchasing equities in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in 2008. Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and charged by Russian prosecutors with two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's shell companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009 Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention because of a failure by prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.

Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted act of revenge by Russian authorities against a heroic anti-corruption activist.

It's only recently that Browder's position was challenged by the European Court of Human Rights who in its ruling on August 27, 2019 concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence." And as such "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."

"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."

Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable activities, Browder had been refused entry to Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly expressed by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:

[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities, accusing them of corruption and violation of human rights. The death of his accountant and auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch an international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky is anything but.

Despite Brower's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic documents and testimonies show that Magnitsky died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a gallstone condition. It was negligence typical at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high level functionaries in the prison system were fired or demoted.

For the past ten years Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by prison guards. Without any verifiable evidence he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18 minutes. This was never corroborated by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.

Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to discredit and vilify Russia and its government and leaders.

In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying beliefs and assumptions are being seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with the heading Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :

On Fault Lines today I revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei Magnitsky, William Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos were taken the next day.

Later in her report she states:

I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen U.S. media – both allegedly progressive and mainstream -- have refused to publish this information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.

Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten to death with rubber batons. It's this narrative that has attracted the attention of the US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists. To further refute his account, a 2011 analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder found no evidence he was beaten to death.

In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian documents. They were compiled immediately after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. Recent investigative research has revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The first document D309 states that shortly before Magnitsky's death: "Handcuffs were used in connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the handcuffs were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a forensic review states that while in the prison hospital "Magnitsky exhibited behavior diagnosed as "acute psychosis" by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr. Magnitsky to be restrained with handcuffs."

The second document D310 is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the preceding sentence. The sentence in D309 has the phrase " special means were" is changed in D310 to " a rubber baton was."

As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no sense whatsoever, given the title and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistences, including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310 was copied from D309 and that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical reports to have been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document forms a major basis for Browder's claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.

The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a baton attack, combined with forensic photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long assertions that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.

With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains mistakes and inconsistencies that distort the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's death.

Despite Magnitsky's death the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty of corruption in a posthumous trial. Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include the accountant Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case against Magnitsky was closed because of his death.

After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign insisting that his departure from Russia resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However, the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is that in 2003 a Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition, his illegal purchases of shares in Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies were reportedly valued at another $30 million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.

It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went after Magnitsky, the accountant who carried out Browder's schemes.

But back in the USA Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished his tale by asserting that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case got more involved, he presented a convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be presented.

The essence of the case is that in 2007 three shell companies that had once been owned by Browder were used to claim a $232 million tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses. Browder has stated that the companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation organized by a convicted fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence however that Magnitsky and Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.

Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this firm were a large number of shell companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan, owned by Americans, did the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for Firestone Duncan and was assigned to work for Hermitage.

An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was interviewed in 2017 by Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist, who was doing research on Browder's operations in Russia. In the ensuing report on this , Komisar states:

"According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure that Russian investigators would later say was used for tax evasion and illegal share purchases by Hermitage. . .

the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal share purchase schemes.

"He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were "owned" by Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which, in turn, were "owned" by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. He said the structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along the way. Profits could get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and HSBC.

"Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy Gazprom shares in the local market, which was restricted for foreign investors.'"

In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the offices of Hermitage and Firestone Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support Russian charges of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.

In a statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder stated that Russian interior ministry officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies of the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials had."

Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have the qualifications to do so. In fact in 2006 when questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky said he was an auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 he claimed Magnitsky was his lawyer, but in 2015 in his testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as will now be related.

On Browder's initiative , in December 2012 he presented documents to the New York District Attorney alleging that a Russian company Prevezon had "benefitted from part of the $230 million dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number of luxury apartments in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.

As reported by Der Spiegel , Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge in the Prevezon case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later while in court and under oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning with the following exchange:

Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?

He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.

And he had a law degree in Russia?

"I'm not aware he did."

Did he go to law school?


How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?

"I don't know."

Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?


Critically important, during the court case, the responsible U.S. investigator admitted during questioning that his findings were based exclusively on statements and documents from Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his people managed to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that launched the court case, Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when questioned under oath he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact, to almost every question put forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.

The case finally ended in May 2017 when the two sides reached a settlement. Denis Katsyv, the company's sole shareholder, on a related matter agreed to pay nearly six million dollars to the US government, but would not have to admit any wrongdoing. Also the settlement contained an explicit mention that neither Katsyv nor his company Prevezon had anything to do with the Magnitsky case. Afterwards, one of Katsyv's, lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya, exclaimed: "For the first time, the U.S. recognized that the Russians were in the right!"

A major exposé of the Browder-Russia story is presented in a film that came out in June 2016 The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the well-known independent filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov . Reference to this film will be made later but to provide a summary of the Browder tax evasion case some critical information can be obtained from a report by Eric Zuesse , an investigative historian, who managed to get a private viewing of the film by the film's Production Manager.

In the film Nekrasov proceeds to unravel Browder's story, which was designed to conceal his own corporate responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical condition. The film cleverly allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times.

Following the raid by tax officials on the Moscow Hermitage office on June 2, 2007, nothing further on these matters was reported until April 9, 2008 when Ms Rimma Starlova, the figurehead director of the three supposedly stolen Browder shell companies, filed a criminal complaint with the Russian Interior Ministry in Kazan accusing representatives of Browder companies of the theft of state funds, i.e., $232 million in a tax-rebate fraud. Although Hermitage was aware of this report they kept quiet about it because they claimed it as a false accusation against themselves.

On September 23, 2008, there was a news report about a theft of USD 232 million from the Russian state treasury, and the police probe into it. On October 7, 2008, Magnitsky was questioned by tax investigators about the $232 million fraud because he was the accountant for Browder's companies.

The central issue was that during September of 2007 three of Browder's shell companies had changed owners and that afterwards fraud against Russian treasury had been conducted by the new owners of these companies.

According to Magnitsky the way that ownership changed was through powers of attorney. This is a matter that Browder never mentioned. The Nekrasov film shows a document: "Purchase agreement based on this power of attorney, Gasanov represents Glendora Holdings Ltd." Glendora Holdings is another shell company owned by Browder. This shows that Gasanov, the middleman, had the power of attorney connecting the new nominees to the real beneficiaries. However, Gasanov could not be questioned on whose orders he was doing this because shortly afterwards, he mysteriously died. No one proved that it was murder, but if that death was a coincidence, it wasn't the only one.

During September 2007 the three Hermitage shell companies, Rilend, Parfenion and Mahaon, were re-registered by Gasanov to a company called Pluton that was registered in Kazan, and owned by Viktor Markelov, a Russian citizen with a criminal record. Markelov through a series of sham arbitration judgments conducted fake lawsuits that demanded damages for alleged contract violations. Once the damages were paid, in December 2007 the companies filed for tax refunds that came to $232 million. These were taxes that had been paid by these companies in 2006.

On February 5, 2008 the Investigative Committee of the Russian General Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal case to investigate the fraud committed by Markelov and other individuals.

Markelov had hired a Moscow lawyer, Andrey Pavlov, to conduct these complex operations. Afterwards Pavlov was questioned by Russian authorities and revealed what had happened. Markelov was convicted and sentenced to five years for the scam . At his trial Markelov testified that he was not in possession of the $232 million tax refund and that he did not know the identity of the client who would benefit from the refund scheme. And till this day no one knows! However, Russian tax authorities suspect it is William Browder.

At his trial, Markelov testified that one of the people he worked with to secure the fraudulent tax refund was Sergei Leonidovich. Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. Also when questioned by the police, Markelov named Browder's associates Khairetdinov and Kleiner as people involved in the company's re-registration.

So this provides evidence that Magnitsky and Browder's other officials were involved in the re-registration scheme – which Browder later called theft. In his film Nekrasov states that Browder's team had set things up to look as if outsiders -- not Browder's team -- had transferred the assets.

According to Nekrasov's film documentation, Russian courts have established that it was the representatives of the Hermitage investment fund who had themselves voluntarily re-registered the Makhaon, Parfenion and Rilend companies in the name of other individuals, a fact that Mr Browder is seeking to conceal by shifting the blame, without any foundation, onto the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.

Indeed there is cause to be skeptical of the Browder narrative, and that the fraud was in fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court has supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December 2013 that Browder had deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. On the basis of this he was sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.

In the meantime, over all these years, Browder has maintained and convinced the public at large that the $232 million fraud against the Russian treasury had been perpetrated by Magnitsky's interrogators and Russian police. With respect to the "theft" of his three companies (or "vehicles as he refers to them) on September 16, 2008 he stated on his Hermitage website : "The theft of the vehicles was only possible using the vehicles' original corporate documents seized by the Moscow Interior Ministry in its raid on Hermitage's law firm in Moscow on 4 June 2007."

As such, Browder is accusing Russian tax authorities and police for conducting this entire fraudulent operation.

In his film Nekrasov says that the Browder version is: "Yes, the crime took place [$232 million fraud against the public treasury but, according to Browder, actually against Browder's firm], but somebody else did it -- the police did it."

In this convoluted tale, it should be recalled that the fraud against the Russian treasury had first been reported to the police by Rimma Starlova on April 9, 2008. This had been recorded on the Hermitage website. In preparing the material for his film, Nekrasov noted that

"In March 2009, Starlova's report disappeared from Hermitage's website. . . . This is the same time that Magnitsky started to be treated as an analyst . . . who discovered the $232 million fraud. Thus the Magnitsky-the-whistleblower story was born, almost a year after the matter had been reported to the police."

Nekrasov's film also undermines the basis of Browder's case that Magnitsky had been killed by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov, but this is questionable since documents show Magnitsky had not accused anyone. As Nekrasov states in the film: "The problem is, he [Magnitsky] made no accusations. In that testimony, its record contains no accusations. Mr. Magnitsky did not actually testify against the two officers [Karpov and Kuznetsov]." So this factual evidence should destroy Browder's accusations.

It should be noted Magnitsky's original interview with authorities was as a suspect, not a whistleblower. Also contradicting Browder's claims, Nekrasov notes that Magnitsky does not even mention the names of the police officers in a key statement to authorities.

In his film Nekrasov includes an interview that he had with Browder regarding the issues about Magnitsky. Nekrasov confronts Browder with the core contradictions of his story. Incensed, Browder rises up and threatens the filmmaker:

" Anybody who says that Sergei Magnitsky didn't expose the crime before he was arrested is just trying to whitewash the Russian Government. Are you trying to say that Pavel Karpov is innocent? I'd really be careful about your going out and saying that Magnitsky wasn't a whistleblower. That's not going to do well for your credibility." Browder then walks off in a huff.

Nekrasov claims to be especially struck that the basis of Browder's case -- that Magnitsky had been killed by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov -- is a lie because there is documentary evidence that Magnitsky had not accused anyone.

Because of Browder's accusations, Nekrasov interviewed Pavel Karpov, the police officer who Browder accused of being involved in Magnitsky's alleged murder, despite the fact that Karpov was not on duty the day Magnitsky died.

Karpov presents Nekrasov with documents that Browder's case was built on. These original documents are actually fundamentally different from the way Browder had described them. This documentary evidence further exposes Browder's story for what it is.

Nekrasov asks Karpov why Browder wants to demonize him. Karpov explains that he had pursued Browder in 2004 for tax evasion, so that seems to be the reason why Browder smears him. And then Karpov says, "Having made billions here, Browder forgot to tell how he did it. So it suits him to pose as a victim. He is wanted here, but Interpol is not looking for him."

Afterwards in 2013, Karpov had tried to sue Browder for libel in a London court, but was not able to on the basis of procedural grounds since he was a resident of Russia and not the UK. However at the conclusion of the case, set out in his Judgment the presiding judge, Justice Simon, made some interesting comments.

"The causal link which one would expect from such a serious charge is wholly lacking; and nothing is said about torture or murder. In my view these are inadequate particulars to justify the charge that the Claimant was a primary or secondary party to Sergei Magnitsky's torture and murder, and that he would continue to commit or 'cause' murder, as pleaded in §60 of the Defence.

The Defendants have not come close to pleading facts which, if proved, would justify the sting of the libel."

In other words – in plain English – in the judge's view, Karpov was not in any sense party to Magnitsky's death, and Browder's claim that he was is not valid.

On the basis of the evidence that has been presented, it is undeniable that Browder's case appears to be a total misrepresentation, not only of Magnitsky's statements, but of just about everything else that's important in the case .

On a separate matter, on April 15, 2015 in a New York court case involving the US government and a Russian company, Previzon Holdings, Bill Browder had been ordered by a judge to give a deposition to Prevezon's lawyers.

Throughout this deposition, Browder (now under oath) contradicted virtually every aspect of his Magnitsky narrative and stated "I don't recall" when pressed about key portions of his narrative that he had previously repeated unabashedly in his testimonies to Congress and interviews with Western media. Browder "remembered nothing" and could not even deny asking Magnitsky to take responsibility for his (Browder's) crimes.

As a further example of Browder's dishonesty, in one of his publications, he shows a photo of an alleged employee of Browder's law firm, Firestone Duncan, named "Victor Poryugin" with vicious facial wounds from allegedly being tortured and beaten by police. However, the person shown was never with Browder's firm. Instead, this is a photo of "an American human rights campaigner beaten up during a street protest in 1961." It was Jim Zwerg, civil-rights demonstrator, during the 1960s, in the American South. Nekrasov was appalled and found it almost unimaginable that Browder would switch photos like that to demonize Russia and its police.

Browder was arrested by the Spanish police in June 2018. Even though Russia has on six occasions requested Browder's arrest through Interpol for tax fraud, the Spanish national police determined that Browder had been detained in error because the international warrant was no longer valid and released him.

A further matter that reflects on his character, William Browder, the American-born co-founder of Hermitage Capital Management is now a British citizen. The US taxes offshore earnings, but the UK does not. Highly likely because of this, in 1998 he gave up his American citizenship and became a British citizen and thereby has avoided paying US taxes on foreign investments. Nevertheless, he still has his family home in Princeton, NJ and also owns a $11 million dollar vacation home in Aspen, Colorado.

To put this in political context, Browder's narrative served a strong geopolitical purpose to demonize Russia at the dawn of the New Cold War. As such, Browder played a major role in this. In fact, the late celebrated American journalist Robert Parry thought that Browder single-handedly deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War.

Browder's campaign was so effective that in December 2012 he exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia, and as a result the US Congress passed a bipartisan bill, the Magnitsky Act, which was then signed by President Obama. U.S. Senators Ben Cardin and John McCain were instrumental in pushing through the Magnitsky Act, based on Browder's presentations.

However, key parts of the argument that passed into law in this act have been shown to be based on fraud and fabrication of 'evidence.' This bill blacklisted Russian officials who were accused of being involved in human-rights abuses.

In her analysis of the Magnitsky Act, Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist, reveals a little known fact :

"A problem with the Magnitsky Act is that there is no due process. The targets are not told the evidence against them, they cannot challenge accusations or evidence in a court of law in order to get off the list. This "human rights law" violates the rule of law. There is an International Court with judges and lawyers to deal with human rights violators, but the US has not ratified its jurisdiction. Because it does not want to be subject to the rules it applies to others."

In 2017, Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Act, which enables the U.S. to impose sanctions against Russia for human rights violations worldwide.

In a move that history will show to be ill-advised, on October 18, 2017 Canada's Parliament and Senate unanimously approved Bill 226, a 'Magnitsky Act.' It mimics the US counterpart and targets Russia for further economic sanctions. Russia immediately denounced Canada's actions as being counter-productive, pointless and reprehensible. Actually an act of this type had been opposed by Stéphane Dion while he was Canada's minister of foreign affairs because he viewed it as a needless provocation against Russia. Dion also stated that adoption of a 'Magnitsky Act' would hurt the interests of Canadian businesses dealing with Russia and would thwart Canada's attempt's to normalize relations with Russia. However, Dion was replaced by Chrystia Freeland who immediately pushed this through. This is not surprising considering her well-documented Nazi family background and who is persona non grata in Russia.

A version of the Magnitsky Act was enacted in the UK and the Baltic republics in 1917.

In early 2020 a proposal to enact a version of the Magnitsky Act was presented to the Australian parliament and it is still under consideration. There has been considerable opposition to it including a detailed report by their Citizens Party, which exposes the full extent of Browder's fraud and chicanery.

The investigation into Browder's business activities in Russia is still an ongoing endeavour. On October 24, 2017 the

Russian Prosecutor General , Yuri Chaika, requested the US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a probe into alleged tax evasion by Bill Browder, who in 2013 had already been sentenced in absentia to 9 years in prison in Russia for a similar crime.

Browder at that time was still being tried in Russia for suspected large-scale money laundering, also in absentia. Chaika added that Russian law enforcement possesses information that over $1 billion was illegally transferred from the country into structures connected with Bill Browder.

The Prosecutor General also asked Sessions to reconsider the Magnitsky Act. As he put it,

" from our standpoint, the act was adopted for no actual reason, while it was lobbied by people who had committed crimes in Russia. In our view, there are grounds to claim that this law lacks real foundation and that its passing was prompted by criminals' actions."

It's not known if Sessions ever responded to the Russian Prosecutor General. In any event, President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions on November 7, 2018. As such it's evident that Russia's concerns about Browder's dishonest activities are stymied.

Extensive reference has already been made to the film that came out in June 2016 The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the independent filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov . When Nekrasov started the film he had fully believed Browder's story but as he delved into what really happened, to his surprise, he discovered that the case documents and other incontrovertible facts revealed Browder to be a fraud and a liar. The ensuing film presents a powerful deconstruction of the Magnitsky myth, but because of Browder's political connections and threats of lawsuits, the film has been blacklisted in the entire "free world." So much for the "free world's" freedom of the press and media. This film is not available on YouTube.

The documentary was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016, but at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians cancelled the showing.

There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Despite the frantic attempts by Browder's lawyers to block this documentary film from being shown anywhere, Washington's Newseum, to its credit, had a one-time showing on June 13, 2016, including a question-and-answer session with Andrei Nekrasov, moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. Except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.

Nekrasov's powerful deconstruction of the Magnitsky myth – and the film's subsequent blacklisting throughout the "free world" – recall other instances in which the West's propaganda lines don't stand up to scrutiny, so censorship and ad hominem attacks become the weapons of choice to defend " perception management ."

Other than the New York Times that had a lukewarm review , the mainstream media condemned the film and its showing. As such, with the exception of that one audience, the public in the USA, Canada and Europe has been shielded from the documentary's discoveries. The censorship of this film has made it a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story."

Andrei Nekrasov is still prepared to go to court to defend the findings of his film, but Bill Browder has refused to do this and simply keeps maligning the film and Mr. Nekrasov.

Recent Developments

Although for almost the past ten years Browder's self-serving story had been accepted almost worldwide and served to help vilify Russia, in the past few months there has been an awakening to the true state of affairs about Browder.

The first such article "The Case of Sergei Magnitsky: Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions" written by Benjamin Bidder, a German journalist, appeared on November 26, 2019 in Der Spiegel. At the outset Bidder states:

"Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him to be. Did the perfidious conspiracy to murder Magnitsky ever really take place? Or is Browder a charlatan whose story the West was too eager to believe? The certainty surrounding the Magnitsky affair becomes muddled in the documents, particularly the clear division between good and evil. The Russian authorities' take is questionable, but so is everyone else's -- including Bill Browder's.

But with the Magnitsky sanctions, it could be that the activist Browder used a noble cause to manipulate Western governments."

In summation, the article raises serious questions about many aspects of Browder's account. It concluded that his narrative was riddled with lies and said Western nations have fallen for a "convenient" story made up by a "fraudster. "

The report provoked Browder's fury, and he swiftly filed a complaint against Der Spiegel with the German Press Council as well as a complaint to the editor of Der Spiegel .

On December 17, 2019 Der Spiegel responded : " Why DER SPIEGEL Stands Behind Its Magnitsky Reporting." In a lengthy detailed response the journal rejects all aspects of Browder's complaint. They point out the inconsistencies in Browder's version of events and demonstrate that he is unable to present sufficient proof for his claims. They state: We believe his complaint has no basis and would like to review why we have considerable doubts about Browder's story and why we felt it necessary to present those doubts publicly."

Their report is highly enlightening and will have long-term consequences. It is one of the best refutations of Browder's falsified accounts that led to the Magnitsky Act. It exposes Browder as a fraud and his Magnitsky story as a fake. Despite all this, this exposé was ignored in the mainstream media so most people are unaware of these revelations. A good review of it is presented by Lucy Komisar in her article The Der Spiegel exposé of Bill Browder, December 6, 2019.

The German Press Council rejected Browder's complaint against Der Spiegel in January 2020 but Browder did not disclose this so it became known only in early May. Lucy Komisar reported this on May 12 and the main points of the Council's rejection are presented in her account. Browder had complained that the article had serious factual errors. The Press Council stated that Browder's position lacks proof and there could be no objection to Der Spiegel's examination of events leading to Magnitsky's death. All other Browder objections were rejected as well. In summation the Council stated: "Overall, we could not find a violation of journalistic principles."

But the action of the press council has not been reported in the Canadian, U.S. or UK media. Nor was the November Der Spiegel report.

The German Press Council ruling follows a December 2019 Danish Press Board ruling against another Browder complaint over an article by a Danish financial news outlet,, on his tax evasion and invented Magnitsky story. Significantly, both the Danish and German cases involve mainstream media, which usually toe the US-UK-NATO strategic line against Russia, which Browder's story serves. And these press complaint rulings follow a September 2019 European Court of Human Rights ruling that there was credible evidence that Magnitsky and Browder were engaged in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud and that Magnitsky was rightfully charged.

In summation, for ten years or more, no one in the West ever seriously challenged Bill Browder's account of what happened to his "lawyer" Sergei Magnitsky and his stories of corruption and malfeasance in Russia. This is what allowed him to get such influence that the Magnitsky Act was passed, despite Russia's attempts to clarify matters.

But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most influential journals Der Spiegel published an investigative bombshell picking apart Browder's story about his auditor Sergei Magnitsky's death. Browder immediately lashed out at Der Spiegel , accusing it of "misrepresenting the facts." However, his outraged objections backfired and resulted in a further even more damaging Der Spiegel article and a rebuke from the German Press Council.

At long last, thanks to Der Spiegel , its investigative reports have effectively rejected and discredited Browder's claim that Magnitsky was a courageous whistleblower who exposed corruption in Russia and was mercilessly killed by authorities out of revenge.

Despite this important and significant course of events, because of its imbedded Russophobia, the mainstream media have completely ignored the Der Spiegel exposé and almost nowhere has this been reported. To some extent this is because Browder has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. Hence aside from people in Germany, this has been a non-event and the Browder hoax still prevails. Given this, it is important for us to publicize this revelation as best we can.

John Ryan, Ph.D. is a Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg The Untouchable Mr. Browder? The Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and international crime. Israel Shamir Is Bill Browder the Most Dangerous Man in the World? The darling of the war party needs to answer some questions Philip Giraldi

Vuki , says: Show Comment July 1, 2020 at 10:44 pm GMT

John, great article but we know that what you call "large-scale privatizations in Russia " was a large scale robbery. Even Magnitsky's mother stated that Browder is a fraud. Mr. Nekrasov whose film has been banned in many countries due to Browder's legal challenges has a reputation as a Putin critic -- After interviewing Mr. Browder in 2010 Nekrasov says he set out to make a "Magnitsky the hero" film. But as filming proceeded he "began to have doubts". More accurate would be that he smelled a rat. John, I have read many of your articles you never disappoint with your research and evidence.
Neo-Socratic , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 5:26 am GMT
Outstanding article sir. I remember when Browder popped up in the news a couple of years ago and made TV appearances on all three big networks in the same day. I was astonished that this lowlife wielded such influence in America.

Total and absolute corruption just like Weimer.

TheTrumanShow , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 5:49 am GMT
" smelled a rat "

Indeed – and very likely more than one! It should be obvious that the ease with which Browder (a complete nonentity) was able to get away with what he got away with in Russia and remain a virtually untouchable, protected free man to this day, in spite of the very significant evidence against him, would very much seem to indicate that he, much like Paul Bremer later in Iraq, was a tool of higher powers.

No Friend Of The Devil , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 6:53 am GMT
Excellent article. There is a misperception that these pathological liars are believed, since their critics are silenced. It has been my experience that that is not the case. The pathological liars are not believed. They just keep lying, sabotaging, fining, legal system stalking, shouting down their oppenents, black listing those who doubt or know that they are lying as conspiracy theorists. I've been witnessing this for far to long. It is obviously not limited to the Magnitsky Act. This country is really nothing more than a sick joke at this point. These individuals do not behave like people. They behave like mercury poisoned monsters. Maybe they are. There is no logical excuse for this insanity. However, if they were mercury poisoned monsters, they would not all always have the same insane delusions. They are extremely corrupt sadistic terrorist criminal psychopaths that have destroyed America and the rest of the world too.

They are not The Resistance, they are The Persistence! Something has to be done about them. Freedom of the press does not give people the freedom to deliberately lie. You may doubt that, however, slander, libel, and defamation of charcter suits will prove you to be wrong, in addition to providing false information that endangers human life and national security, in the case of a non person like covid that is being used to deprive people of every liberty and rights that exists, including life. They are terrorists. They cannot claim to be news journalists or investigative reporters if they simply say whatever their advertisers or the government tells them to say. If they are unable to get to the bottom of the story, when so many in the alternative media are, then they are either unqualified to do their jobs, or are simply full of shit.

I really believe that the primary intention of covid and the response to it is to get people to voluntarily give up cell phones, particularly since 5-G is so hazardous. That way, the industries will never have to admit any wrong doing about the health hazards related to cell phones and Wi-Fi.That
is what I believe. Also, you can be damn sure that the government and corporations do not like the fact that they can be embarrassed by people that they cannot prevent from embarrassing them without being accused of human rights abuses like vault7 technology.

"Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?!" – Pink Floyd Fletcher Memorial Home For Incurable Tyants

Knowing them, they probably did!

Anon [268] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 7:23 am GMT
@Vuki I had at one time a copy of a book titled "The murder of Bill Browder" by an Eastern European journalist which I have, unfortunately, misplaced. As well as being an exposè of the nefarious Mr Browder it also exposes far more serious wrongdoing against him. This book has vanished from the Google search engine (I wonder why?) so if anyone can tell me where to get a copy i would really value it
FlintWheel4 , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 7:41 am GMT
An aptly titled must read:

While most American's were distracted by the emerging World Wide Web, our elite were raping Russia. I'll say it again, America's "elite" raped Russia. In internet time twenty five years past puts you in prehistoric times. This is critical history that most of us missed, or more accurately wasn't available -- to the majority of us.

This was the Clinton era -- with just that you know this story can't be good. With Slick Willie's taste for skanks in a period where there is a story of beautiful impoverished young Russian women (teens likely) forming a line for one of our "elite" who was peeling off Benjamins for blowjobs in a club frequented by their foreign "advisors." Yep, I'm sure this was of no interest to William Jefferson Blythe III.

Harvard University was given a significant role in this "helping" of Russia (pardon the pun), due to the prestige of this institution, long-gone and unbeknownst to Russian elite, but hey they weren't "connected" yet. Geez, sorry about your luck. The Harvard you got was the Harvard we've been getting also, a race privileged hot bed for educating global "rapists" (or was that Brandeis University I'm thinking of?). Six of one

William Browder is a highly educated Jew (not certain about either) who's grandfather was Earl Browder, the former General Secretary of the CPUSA (that's the "Communist Party of the United States of America" for those of you who didn't know we had one). Bill Browder crowed about the irony in his grandfather being an activist for communism here in the U.S., while HE was an activist for capitalism in Russia! No, he was doing to Russia what Jews did to Russia when they hijacked the real Russian's revolution -- fucking them.

Billy Browder's book, "Red Notice," seems at first heartfelt story from a genuine American do-gooder. Oops! I missed the "A true story " tip-off. It's a self engrandizing fairy tale of a rapist's plea of innocence because "she didn't say NO."

There is MUCH more to this most interesting, world impacting historical event, that I believe is the most understated and least understood of the twentieth century, but that said, who fucked up? Certainly Yeltsin with his alcohol addled brain (likely rooted for by Russian Jews, who are the MOST notorious criminals world-wide) in trusting and believing America would help Russia! More significantly I feel America did, big-time, for acting so damn un-American. Unfortunately the America I'm dreaming of is as long-gone as Harvard and now, like Harvard has a Zionist occupied governance (if you didn't know what "ZOG" stood for). Come to think of it, we're acting much like Israel. God save America!

I can tell you one person who did not, Vladimir Ilyich Putin. Yeltsin threw Russia's doors open to the west and Putin slammed them shut. You can quibble about how he got and keeps his office, or how he enriched himself through the process, but he had a job to do and he did it well -- he saved Russia from what the west was going to continue doing to it. You may not agree with his ideology, but he is the most formidable leader the world has. I pray he leaves Russia and Russians in a better place than we're headed.

So, here we are today, where Trump is currently in the position to decide whether Russia should be invited to the next G-whatever summit:

I say we're damn lucky it isn't Putin deciding whether to include Trump and the U.S., as some day it very well may be.

P.S. This is a rant of mine burning a long time for a window. Thank you John Ryan. Thank you Billy Browder. Most of all, Thank YOU Mr. Unz!

UNZ has provided a platform for authors, journalists and "knowers" from all over the world. All converging on the same theme -- there is a "they" and there is a plan. This seeming runaway train has awakened plain folks with uncommon sense and giants of intellect alike. Kudos, Ron Unz.

GMC , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 8:48 am GMT
" The western Governments are easily moved or manipulated" and have been Gang Banged – time and time again by the corrupt mafia corporations, Zionists inc., and a dozen other international gangs that are in charge of things – today. Not to mention the corrupt, treasonist nationals that work for the Western Governments. Browder's Hermitage scam just shows how easily the US Gov and others are bought and paid for – that's why the true Magnitsky lie , has to be covered up , from the public. PS – notice all the tax money Browder skimmed off the US – very visible to anyone that can smell a Rat.
jsigur , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 9:24 am GMT
I became aware of the Browder case when known controlled asset, Brandon Martinez, used his claims as a refutation of Putin which he seemed unbelievably obsessed about.
As I perused you-tube for videos on Browder, I saw that he was welcomed into all approved western media to make his case with the questioners rarely going into the material to dispute his claims. I determined at that time that Browder was part of a deep state campaign to demonize Russia under Putin leadership.
It surprises me not to hear no MSM News organization will print these latest findings since in 2012 I realized the free world and press are anything but free and lie as much or more than the most demonized communist outlets.
Not mentioned in the article that I recall is the fact that Browder's dad was the head of the Communist party in the USA before and during WWII which should be enough by itself for a legitimate news outlet to scrutinize with great vigor any claims made by the man but then we know WWII was really a war against any country willing to exercise goyim rule independent of Jewish advisors and that the US was on the side of Jewish power in that war as much as all the other wars it has engaged in.
(Its interesting that my spell check keeps telling me that there is no such word as "goyem")
Parsnipitous , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 10:09 am GMT
"But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most influential journals "

Der Spiegel is known as a craven Atlanticist rag. Somebody high up – possibly as a snub to the Trump admin – must have provided ass cover for it to be upheld.

Chet Roman , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 11:40 am GMT
Saggy , says: Website Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 12:27 pm GMT
@Vuki You can see the film here

That Browder is a crook is not surprising, the revelation is the extent to which he is supported by the establishment.

annamaria , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 12:52 pm GMT
Bill Browder has been heavily supported by Ben Cardin, a prominent zionist in the US Congress.

Browder is a mega thief (he was also involved in several deaths-on-order) who owes everything to Cardin and other zionists from the Mega Group like Lex Wexner and similar criminals:

It is the same old story of subversion of the state by the moneyed and powerful Israel-firsters.

vot tak , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 2:39 pm GMT
Useful summary of browder's scam. The man managered to wield a great amount of influence in american/uk media and government, yet is only a minor player by western oligarch standards. For that he must have substantial backing. By whom?

Well he definitely is closely defended by these sources:

British Jewish businessman who challenged Putin is put on Interpol wanted list

Be careful of Putin, he is a true enemy of Jews

Who has the power to control media and western governments to such a tight degree?

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 3:18 pm GMT
Bill Browder is a thief, a typical representative of a flock of Western vultures that landed in 1990s Russia to steal state assets. When his thievery was curbed by Putin, he got angry and vengeful, like a scorned lover. He manufactured and spread lies to whip up an anti-Putin campaign in the West. His "narrative" was eagerly supported by the neocons and other scum, as it was in line with their "narrative". Naturally, the first things about Browder any honest investigator or journalist would unearth were lies and fraud. Just as naturally, the scum and scum-controlled Western MSM keep spreading lies supporting their "narrative", and ignoring numerous facts that contradict it.
Alfred , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 3:31 pm GMT
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"

There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia – because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.

Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested – Clinton's & Epstein's Lover | Armstrong Economics

Really No Shit , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now that's the power of corruption!

[Jul 01, 2020] Chagnon theorized that war, far from being the product of capitalist exploitation and colonization was in fact the true "state of nature."

Jul 01, 2020 |

Sean , says: June 30, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMT

There is no reason for US elite act as is being suggested, because the cake they get the lion's share of is growing and so even though inequality is growing, the economy is too and the common people are getting slightly better off.

If a country were in the hands of a tiny minority and they were to act in such a way and try steal all the wealth for themselves, then they would be overthrown by domestic enemies like Somoza was.

Chagnon theorized that war, far from being the product of capitalist exploitation and colonization was in fact the true "state of nature." He concluded that 1) "maximizing political and personal security was the overwhelming driving force in human social and cultural evolution," and 2) "warfare has been the most important single force shaping the evolution of political society in our species."

Everything in the last five years is a symptom of the US reacting to being bested by China.

I happen to think states that are even slightly nation-states have emergent qualities, like a nest of social insects that react as though there is central direction though none exists, and no state is closer to being alive than a democracy.

[Jun 24, 2020] Behind the veil of the protest movement, the war on the American people is gaining pace by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior." ..."
"... The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates. They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40 takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps ..."
"... Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. ..."
Jun 24, 2020 |

"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. It's goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself. This is an ideological movement Even now, many of us pretend this is about police brutality. We think we can fix it by regulating chokeholds or spending more on de-escalation training. We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening. But we have no idea what we are up against. ..These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement and someone needs to save the country from it." Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy. The Black Lives Matter protests are just the tip of the spear, they are an expression of public outrage that is guaranteed under the first amendment. But don't be deceived, there's more here than meets the eye. BLM is funded by foundations that seek to overthrow our present form of government and install an authoritarian regime guided by technocrats, oligarchs and corporatists all of who believe that Chinese-type despotism is far-more compatible with capitalism than "inefficient" democracy. The chaos in the streets is merely the beginning of an excruciating transition from one system to another. This is an excerpt from an article by F. William Engdahl at Global Research:

"By 2016, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network .. That year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already given some $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement .. ..

The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations." ( "America's Own Color Revolution ", Global Research)

$100 million is alot of money. How has that funding helped BLM expand its presence in politics and social media? How many activists and paid employees operate within the network disseminating information, building new chapters, hosting community outreach programs, and fine-tuning an emergency notification system that allows them to put tens of thousands of activists on the streets in cities across the country at a moment's notice? Isn't that what we've seen for the last three weeks, throngs of angry protestors swarming in more than 400 cities across America all at the beck-and-call of a shadowy group whose political intentions are still not clear?

And what about the rioting, looting and arson that broke out in numerous cities following the protests? Was that part of the script too? Why haven't BLM leaders condemned the destruction of private property or offered a public apology for the downtown areas that have been turned into wastelands? In my own hometown of Seattle, the downtown corridor– which once featured Nordstrom, Pottery Barn and other upscale retail shops– is now a checkerboard of broken glass, plywood covers and empty streets all covered in a thick layer of garish spray-paint. The protest leaders said they wanted to draw attention to racial injustice and police brutality. Okay, but how does looting Nordstrom help to achieve that goal?

And what role have the Democrats played in protest movement?

They've been overwhelmingly supportive, that's for sure. In fact, I can't think of even one Democrat who's mentioned the violence, the looting or the toppling of statues. Why is that?

It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior."

According to the Black Agenda Repor t: "Biden and (South Carolina's Strom) Thurmond joined hands to push 1986 and 1988 drug enforcement legislation that created the nefarious sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine as well as other draconian measures that implicate him as one of the initiators of what became mass incarceration. " Biden also spearheaded "the attacks on Anita Hill when she came forward to testify against the supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas". All told, Biden's record on race is much worse than Trump's despite the media's pathetic attempts to portray Trump as Adolph Hitler. It's just more bunkum from the dissembling media.

Bottom line: The Democrats think they can ride racial division and social unrest all the way to the White House. That's what they are betting on.

So, yes, the Dems are exploiting the protests for political advantage, but it goes much deeper than that. After all, we know from evidence that was uncovered during the Russiagate investigation, that DNC leaders are intimately linked to the Intel agencies, law enforcement (FBI), and the elite media. So it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these deep state agents and assets work together to shape the narrative that they think gives them the best chance of regaining power. Because, that's what this is really all about, power. Just as Russiagate was about power (removing the president using disinformation, spies, surveillance and other skulduggery.), and just as the Covid-19 fiasco was essentially about power (collapsing the economy while imposing medical martial law on the population.), so too, the BLM protest movement is also about power, the power to inflict massive damage on the country's main urban centers with the intention of destabilizing the government, restructuring the economy and paving the way for a Democratic victory in November. It's all about power, real, unalloyed political muscle.

Surprisingly, one of the best critiques of what is currently transpiring was written by Niles Niemuth at the World Socialist Web Site. Here's what he said about the widespread toppling of statues:

"The attacks on the monuments were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied attempt by the Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to create a narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. This campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes entirely with the reactionary political interests driving it.

It is worth noting that the one institution seemingly immune from this purge is the Democratic Party, which served as the political wing of the Confederacy and, subsequently, the KKK.

This filthy historical legacy is matched only by the Democratic Party's contemporary record in supporting wars that, as a matter of fact, primarily targeted nonwhites. Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and under Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. The New York Times was a leading champion and propagandist for all of these war." ( "Hands off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!, WSWS)

What the author is referring to is The 1619 Project, which is a racialized version of American history that was published by the Times on August 19, 2019. The deliberately-distorted version of history was cobbled together in anticipation of increasing social unrest and racial antagonism. The rioting, looting and vast destruction of America's urban core can all be traced back to a document that postulates that the country was founded on racial hatred and exploitation. In other words, The 1619 Project provides the perfect ideological justification for the chaos and violence that has torn the country apart for the last three weeks. This is an excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of "black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction: "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "

This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .

. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web Site)

Keep in mind, this essay in the WSWS was written a full year before BLM protests broke out across the country. Was Hannah-Jones enlisted to create a document that would provide the dry tinder for the massive and coordinated demonstrations that have left the country stunned and divided?

Probably, after all, (as noted above) the author's theory is that one race is genetically programed to exploit the other. ( "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. ") Well, if we assume that whites are genetically and irreversibly "racist", then we must also assume that the country that these whites founded is racist and evil. Thus, the only logical remedy for this situation, is to crush the white segment of the population, destroy their symbols, icons, and history, and replace the system of government with one that better reflects the values of the emerging non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.

The 1619 Project is a calculated provocation meant to exacerbate racial animosities and pave the way to open conflagration. And it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. The nation is split into warring camps while Washington has devolved into fratricidal warfare. Was that the objective, to destabilize the country in preparation for the dissolution of the current system followed by a fundamental restructuring of the government consistent with the identity politics lauded by the Democrats?

The Democrats, the Intel agencies and the media are all in bed together fomenting unrest with the intention of decimating the economy, crushing the emerging opposition and imposing their despotic one-party system on all of us. Here's a clip from a piece by Paul Craig Roberts that sums up the role of the New York Times in inciting race-based violence:

"The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their anti-white "1619 project," an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in blacks and guilt in white people.

Why does the New York Times lie, brainwash blacks into hatred of whites, and attempt to brainwash whites into guilt for the creation of a New World labor force four centuries ago? Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times fomenting of racial hatred in a multicultural society?

The New York Times is a vile organization. The New York Times attempts to discredit the President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges. The New York Times painted General Flynn, who honorably served the US, as a Russian agent and enabled General Flynn's frame-up on false and now dropped charges. The New York Times spews hatred of white people. And now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white supremacism.

Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times? The New York Times is clearly and intentionally making a multicultural America impossible . By threatening white people with the prospect of hate-driven racial violence, the New York Times editorial board is fomenting the rise of white supremacy." ( "The New York Times Editorial Board Is a Threat to Multicultural America ", The Unz Review)

The editors of the Times don't hate whites, they are merely attacking the growing number of disillusioned white working people who have left the Democratic party in frustration due to their globalist policies regarding trade, immigration, offshoring, outsourcing and the relentless hollowing out of the nation's industrial core . The Dems have abandoned these people altogether and –now that they realize they will never be able to lure them back into their camp– they've decided to wage a full-blown, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners war on them. They've decided to crush them mercilessly and fill their ranks with multi-ethnic, bi-racial groups that will work for pennies on the dollar. (which will keep the Dems corporate supporters happy.) So, no, the Times does not hate white people. What they hate is the growing populist movement that derailed Hillary Clinton and put anti-globalist Trump in the White House. That's the real target of this operation, the disillusioned throng of working people who have washed their hands of the Democrats for good. Here's more background from Paul Craig Roberts:

"On August 12 Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, met with the Times' employees to refocus the Times' attack on Trump . The Times, Baquet said, is shifting from Trump-Russia to Trump's racism. The Times will spend the run-up to the 2020 presidential election building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. Of course, if Trump is a racist it means that the people who elected him are also racists. Indeed, in Baquet's view, Americans have always been racist. To establish this narrative, the New York Times has launched the "1619 Project," the purpose of which is "to reframe the country's history."

According to the Washington Examiner, "The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It begins with an overview of race in America -- 'Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.'

The premise that America originated as a racist slave state is to be woven into all sections of the Times -- news, business, sports, travel, the entire newspaper. The project intends to take the "reframing" of the United States into the schools where white Americans are to be taught that they are racist descendants of slave holders. A participant in this brainwashing of whites, which will make whites guilty and defenseless, says "this project takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has shaped their country's history." In other words, the New York Times intends to make slavery the ONLY explanation of America.

At the meeting of the executive editor of the New York Times with the Times' employees to refocus the Times' attack on President Trump, Baquet said: "Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story." ( "Is White Genocide Possible? ", The Unz Review)

Repeat: "Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story." Either Baquet has a crystal ball or he had a pretty good idea of the way in which the 1619 Project was going to be used . I suspect it was the latter.

For the last 3 and a half years, Democrats and the media have ridiculed anyone who opposes their globalist policies as racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, flag-waving, Nascar boosting, white nationalist "deplorables". Now they have decided to intensify the assault on mainly white working people by preemptively destroying the economy, destabilizing the country, and spreading terror far and wide. It's another vicious psy-ops campaign designed to thoroughly demoralize and humiliate the enemy who just happen to be the American people. Here's more form the WSWS:

" It is no coincidence that the promotion of this racial narrative of American history by the Times, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the privileged upper-middle-class layers it represents, comes amid the growth of class struggle in the US and around the world.

The 1619 Project is one component of a deliberate effort to inject racial politics into the heart of the 2020 elections and foment divisions among the working class. The Democrats think it will be beneficial to shift their focus for the time being from the reactionary, militarist anti-Russia campaign to equally reactionary racial politics." (" The New York Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history " WSWS)

Can you see how the protests are being used to promote the political objectives of elites operating behind the mask of "impartial" reporting? The scheming NY Times has replaced the enlightenment principles articulated in our founding documents with a sordid tale of racial hatred and oppression. The editors seek to eliminate everything we believe as Americans so they can brainwash us into believing that we are evil people deserving of humiliation, repudiation and punishment. Here's more from the same article:

"In the months preceding these events, the New York Times, speaking for dominant sections of the Democratic political establishment, launched an effort to discredit both the American Revolution and the Civil War. In the New York Times' 1619 Project, the American Revolution was presented as a war to defend slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was cast as a garden variety racist

The attacks on the monuments to these men were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied attempt by the Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to create a narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle . This campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes entirely with the reactionary political interests driving it." (" The New York Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history" , WSWS)

Ideas have consequences, and the incendiary version of events disseminated by the Times has added fuel to a fire that's spread from one coast to the other. Given the damage that has been done to cities across the country, it would be nice to know how Dean Baquet knew that "race was going to play a huge part" in upcoming events? It's all very suspicious. Here's more:

" Given the 1619 Project's black nationalist narrative, it may appear surprising that nowhere in the issue do the names Malcolm X or Black Panthers appear. Unlike the black nationalists of the 1960s, Hannah-Jones does not condemn American imperialism. She boasts that "we [i.e. African-Americans] are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the United States military," and celebrates the fact that "we" have fought "in every war this nation has waged." Hannah-Jones does not note this fact in a manner that is at all critical. She does not condemn the creation of a "volunteer" army whose recruiters prey on poverty-stricken minority youth. There is no indication that Hannah-Jones opposes the "War on Terror" and the brutal interventions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria -- all supported by the Times -- that have killed and made homeless upwards of 20 million people. On this issue, Hannah-Jones is remarkably "color-blind." She is unaware of, or simply indifferent to, the millions of "people of color" butchered and made refugees by the American war machine in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa." (" The New York Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world histor y", WSWS)

So, black nationalists like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are excluded from the The 1619 Project's narrative, but the author boasts that blacks "are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the US military"?? How does that happen unless Hannah-Jones was coached by Democrat leaders about who should and shouldn't be included in the text? None of this passes the smell test. It all suggests that the storyline was shaped by people who had a specific goal in mind. That isn't history, it's fiction written by people who have an ax to grind. The Times even admitted as much in response to the blistering criticism by five of "the most widely read and respected authorities on US history." The New York Times Magazine editor in chief Jake Silverstein rejected the historians' objections saying:

"The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is?"

WTF! "We are not ourselves historians"? That's the excuse?? Give me a break!

The truth is that there was never any attempt to provide an accurate account of events. From the very onset, the goal was to create a storyline that fit the politics, the politics of provocation, incitement, racial hatred, social unrest and violence. That's what the Times and their allies wanted, and that's what they got.

The Deep State Axis: CIA, DNC, NYT

The three-way alliance between the CIA, the Elite Media, and the Democratic leadership has clearly strengthened and grown since the failed Russiagate fiasco. All three parties were likely involved in the maniacal hyping of the faux-Covid pandemic which paved the way for Depression era unemployment, tens of thousands of bankrupt businesses and a sizable portion of the US population thrust into destitution. Now, these deep state loyalists are promoting a "falsified" race-based version of history that pits one group against the other while diverting attention from the deliberate destruction of the economy and the further consolidation of wealth in the hands of the 1 percent.

Behind the veil of the protest movement, the war on the American people is gaining pace.

SteveK9 , says: Show Comment June 24, 2020 at 2:02 am GMT

Stopped reading the Times after the buildup to the Iraq War, when it was clear they were lying. Everyone please stop reading the Times, and in particular stop referring to what they are writing. Act like they don't exist. If enough do, they won't.
FB , says: Website Show Comment June 24, 2020 at 4:22 am GMT
Stopped reading when I got to 'Chinese despotism'

Whitney used to have something to say, but his scribblings now go straight to the bottom of the bird cage

Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment June 24, 2020 at 4:22 am GMT
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates. They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40 takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps

This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will arise.

vot tak , says: Show Comment June 24, 2020 at 4:30 am GMT
"Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy."

I am reminded of david horowitz and chrissy hitchens

And how they promoted Israeli interests after first pretending to be independent thinkers to gain creed for the switch. Standard zionazi-gay psywar tactic.

schnellandine , says: Show Comment June 24, 2020 at 4:42 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates.

This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will arise.

Stupid and planned?

Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. Why should DNC care if Trump is 're-elected'? And if they don't care, who not take a stab at installing an intersectional DNC pinnacle fraudster via the griftiest, most insulting, infuriating way possible? They can't lose.

[Jun 24, 2020] War is the health of the state" is true only to a certain limit. After that the bankruptcy is looming

Jun 24, 2020 |

onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMT

"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "

This "just" in: "War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne

Agent76 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the United States (2004)

For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so. February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order

Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing.

[Jun 23, 2020] Victoria Nuland Alert by Philip Giraldi

Jun 23, 2020 | The Unz Review - Mobile The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media User Settings: Version? Social Media? Read Aloud w/ Show Word Counts No Video Autoplay No Infinite Scrolling
Save Cancel

Settings Foreign Policy
Culture/Society Ideology
Arts/Letters Science
Forum Summary
Bloggers All Bloggers Steve Sailer's iSteve Blog Anatoly Karlin's Russian Reaction Blog Paul Kersey's SBPDL Blog The Audacious Epigone's HBD Blog Selected Tweeters
Columnists All Columnists Ron Unz Gilad Atzmon Robert Bonomo Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Stephen F. Cohen Jonathan Cook John Derbyshire Linh Dinh Guillaume Durocher Pepe Escobar Eamonn Fingleton Norman Finkelstein Philip Giraldi Paul Gottfried C.J. Hopkins Michael Hudson E. Michael Jones JayMan Trevor Lynch Michelle Malkin Eric Margolis Ilana Mercer Ron Paul James Petras Bonnie Faulkner Ted Rall Fred Reed Paul Craig Roberts The Saker Eric Striker Kevin Barrett Israel Shamir James Thompson Andre Vltchek Whitney Webb Mike Whitney Archived Columns Razib Khan Gustavo Arellano Alexander Cockburn Tom Engelhardt Sam Francis Peter Frost W. Patrick Lang Peter Lee Andrew Napolitano Robert Scheer Joseph Sobran Books
Popular PDF Archives
Banned Books
Announcements Articles
Comments More... Most Popular Current Digest College Data Summary
Bloggers Columnists
Authors Settings
More... Main Features Masthead Announcements Search Books Forum Podcasts Videos Periodicals Most Popular Current Digest Comment Archives College Data ← America's Recessional: Time to Bring ... Blogview Philip Giraldi Archive Blogview Philip Giraldi Archive Victoria Nuland Alert The foreign interventionists really hate Russia Philip Giraldi June 23, 2020 1,900 Words 148 Comments 147 New Reply Tweet Reddit Share Share Email Print More Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information

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

It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he has not started any new wars, though he has come dangerously close in the cases of Venezuela and Iran and there would be considerable incentive in the next four months to begin something to bolster his "strong president" credentials and to serve as a distraction from coronavirus and black lives matter.

Be that as it may, Trump will have to run hard to catch up to the record set by his three predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led, including in his administration Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Eliot Abrams, Dan Senor and Scooter Libby. He also had the misfortune of having to endure Vice President Dick Cheney, who thought he was actually the man in charge. All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance its own security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.

Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria. Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with Monica Lewinsky and Obama, aided by Mrs. Clinton, chose to destroy Libya. Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.

So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. The America the exceptional mindset is best exemplified currently by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who personifies the belief that the United States is empowered by God to play only by its own rules when dealing with other nations. That would include following the advice that has been attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, " Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business. "

One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans, Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions was "worth it." Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.

Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.

Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget , but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.

Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.

And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Her use of the word "frontline" is suggestive.

Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Taliban's Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine on the proper way for the United States manage what she sees as the Russian "threat." It is entitled "How a Confident America Should Deal With Russia." Foreign Affairs , it should be observed, is an establishment house organ produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both neocons and liberal interventionists.

Nuland's view is that the United States lost confidence in its own "ability to change the game" against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play "a weak hand well because the United States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and Europe Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as Russia's threat to the liberal world has grown."

What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as a rogue state threatening the "liberal world." She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that Putin might seek " reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin's agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms."

Nuland's view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy. Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat, particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin's great fear over the NATO expansion derives from his having " always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations."

Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as "Russian troops regularly test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country's oil fields and smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons."

Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand.

Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House's threats against countries that do not toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from Washington, not from "undemocratic" leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.

Victoria Nuland recommends 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." Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.

Nuland has a lot more to say in her article and those who are interested in the current state of interventionism in Washington should not ignore her. Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free. It is appropriate for Moscow to have an interest in what goes on right on top of its border while the United States five thousand miles away and possessing both a vastly larger economy and armed forces can, one would think, relax a bit and unload the burden of being the world's self-appointed policeman.

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, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is .

Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:18 am GMT

This is a great overview, but Americans cannot understand these truths after hours of constant propaganda in our media. For example, Hillary Clinton and President Obama destroyed and looted Africa's most prosperous nation in 2011 that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths of innocents. This is not in dispute, it is just ignored despite daily stories about the chaos in Libya. Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war crimes.

Zarathustra , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:45 am GMT
Fact is that many leaders in history did solve the inside problems of their country by outside war.
There is certainly a bit of elevated temperature.
anon [437] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:47 am GMT
Thank you for another great article.

there is one thing

You wrote:

" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, "

As you yourself have pointed out, more than once, in fact, there actually is a foreign country which, more than, interferes in U.S. domestic policy, some would estimate, effectively controls it, and foreign policy, as well.

While it would a bit of an effort to monetize the full amount spent on this effort, I personally would not be a bit surprised if it were significantly larger than $5 billion, and despite that, one could imagine, quite a bargain in terms of their ROI; it could in fact be considerably less than the overt transfer of sovereign U.S. wealth to that foreign government every year.

The past administrations, either every one, or almost every one, going back as far as Truman, certainly , but the trend was already well established during the puppet presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

I'd love to read your rejoinder.

being blocked incorrectly from using my usual handle

Ultrafart the Brave , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:56 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war crimes.

An admirable sentiment, except that the BLM movement appears to be little more than a vehicle for staged chaos nurtured behind the scenes by more war criminals with a hidden agenda.

And more's the pity, because there are hordes of high-ranking war criminals in the Exceptional Nation that richly deserve burning at the stake. In the Libyan context, Muammar Gaddafi was not only a great leader but also a good man, who was doing great things not only for his own people but also for the community of African nations.

If you're going to have a dictator, make sure you get a good one. Gaddafi was a good one.

Trump not so much, but Clinton was and is horrifically evil.

Alfred , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:05 am GMT
The war against Russia has been going on for centuries. Nothing upsets these nutters more than the Russians insulating themselves from the mental virus that has proliferated in the West.

Just read the sour grapes of the usual suspects in this derogatory article. Similar in tone to the nonsense at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. Nothing amuses me more than to watch them vomiting on themselves in frustration.

Moscow, low-key consecration of Victory Cathedral; Catholics denied another church

Anon [233] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:06 am GMT
Nuland's views are, as stated in the article, dangerous fantasy-one could almost accuse her of having psychopathic voices in her head with respect to russia and putin.

It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that this woman was close to the top level in state under obama but we can surely see her handiwork in the devastation of the ukraine nation.

Biff , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:13 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Imagine if Black Lives Matters dared protest against this destruction and looting of Africa's wealthiest nation and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war crimes.

My imagination:
An agitator is planted inside BLM, and is armed and equipped to carry out a terrorist attack on the American people as false flag event – blows up a weight-watchers convention, next to a Wal-mart, and puts a half-a-dozen fat bodies into orbit circling the globe(celestial bodies). After said attack BLM is defunded, and disbanded(but the race war continues).

Chris Moore , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:34 am GMT
You forgot to mention that virtually all of the neocon/liberal interventionist "intellectuals"on your list identify as Jewish, which means they see themselves as having Hebrew backgrounds, which not only gives them an Israel First/Zionist orientation, but which means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" Russia is pathological and ancestral, which means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" Europeans is pathological and ancestral, which means their hatred of "anti-Semitic" white people is pathological and ancestral, which means their desire for nuclear war between whites is pathological and ancestral, which means they believe they can win a nuclear war (perhaps by sheltering in bunker state Israel) and emerge as the anointed "chosen" intellectual priest class of the world

So there is a kind of internal logic or rationalism to their insanity, in the same way that any insular, imperious elite suffering from megalomania and delusions of grandeur can develop internal, echo chamber "logic" that is (objectively) insane. The difference is, their insane "logic" is additionally sanctioned by their particular God or their particular History or their version of God/History.

Hence, with this cult, we not only get insular, echo-chamber imperialism, but we additionally get quasi-religious, messianic fanaticism that will view any nuclear war as pre-ordained fate in service of delivering the Chosen Ones to the world.

And half of America thinks Trump is nuts? It should look at the "intellectual Jews" it's so desperate to consign its fate to.

ThreeCranes , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:35 am GMT
Posturing. What else can this be, coming from the lips of a Jewish woman? It all just sounds so ridiculous. What authority does she have? Only the threat of force, reckless force dispensed with abandon. That's not authority. It's insanity.
Mr. Hack , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:35 am GMT
Another critique of US foreign policy regarding Russia, all referenced under the famous "cookies and milk" response of Ms. Nuland in Kyiv. Lucky for Russia that she wasn't doling out scoops of ice cream instead?

For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.

I applaud the US response of supporting Ukraine's aspirations for a freer more Western oriented country and that it continues to support Ukraine's territorial interests over those of Russia's. It's time for the Giraldis and Cohens of the world to shed their Russian fig leaf covering and be exposed as the gutless appeasers that they really are.

Mustapha Mond , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT
Victoria Nuland (her family name formerly Nudelman) and her blood-thirsty, thieving zionist neocon buddies would love nothing more than to tear Russia apart and finish the rape and plunder of that country first begun under Russia's 'reformer' president, the idiot Yeltsin, wherein mostly jewish Russian and American oligarchs systematically stole what amounts to about $330 billion dollars of Russia's wealth.

That these zionist neocon murderers and thieves would put the world at risk to achieve their goals is no surprise, as one need only look at the 3,000+ innocent American lives, including many Jews, that were snuffed out on 9/11, all to set the stage for the US and allies' "War of Terror" against mainly the enemies of Israel, and to line the pockets of the ever-growing Military-Information-Security Complex. Innocent lives mean absolutely nothing to these monsters.

The campaign against Russia is simply another necessary link in the chain that binds the world to the PNAC vision of using the US and the West to establish and maintain what is essentially a Jewish supremacist movement that barely conceals itself and its nefarious agenda from the useful idiot goyim so necessary to carry forward the PNAC's plan for world domination. And the chubby little Ms Nudelman is just another tireless zionist mouthpiece for this ugly, obnoxious and risky agenda

Mr. Hack , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:47 am GMT
Giraldi would have us believe that it was all a US sponsored provocation, not the natural outcry of the Ukrainiain people seeking change from a thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian regime. Ms.Nuland's cookies must have tasted really good to get the massive outpouring of support in Kiev that demanded systemic change.

chris , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 6:11 am GMT
A major indicator of how long-term foreign policy goals are actually set by the US was revealed when Obama declared Venezuela a threat to national security in 2015!

Venezuela? A threat to US national security?? Sounds completely absurd.

But if you consider your 'national security' being threatened whenever any scarce natural resources in the world are not in your or in your client states' posession, then anthing which interferes with that is a "threat!" Iran (before 2003), Iraq, and Russia certainly fit the bill of being enemies.

This explanation, for me, is much more realistic than to think the neocons are solely driven by cold war mentalities.

The neocons are particularly peeved at Russia because through their oligarchs, they had the crown jewels in their hand before Putin wrested it out. It was always clear from the beginning that the overthrow of the Ukraine government was always just a stepping stone to the overthrow of Putin in Russia.

Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you control China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe financially. Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level, the productive people of the world Germany and China then work for you.

roonaldo , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 6:13 am GMT
Nuland and her ilk will be spewing their dangerous nonsense and banging the drums of war like homicidal energizer bunnies until hell freezes over. Meanwhile, "from Atlantic to Pacific, the insanity is terrific," as the nation devolves in an engineered mass hysteria. As things go down the tubes, the Empire will get ever more desperate, rather than easing back a bit on the throttle. With Donald Boy and Sec. of State "Plump-piehole" egging on Israeli expansionist dreams and drone-executing whomever they please–what could possibly go wrong? I'm waiting for one, just one, European power to call bullshit on the U.S. and put a stop to this madness. Fat chance of that.

I think we are in the Empire's desperation phase. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) report that called for and got another Pearl Harbor also spoke affectionately of creating bioweapons to target any upstart nation encroaching on U.S. hegemony. If the bastards could get away with 9/11, a most obvious inside job, what's not to like about the disruption and confusion of bioweapons? The ruthless evil we are up against is truly staggering.

Rahan , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 6:41 am GMT
It would be super funny, if Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Sudanese, Afghani, and Iranian diplomats now went out en mass to give out cookies to the US rioters.

Taking PR pictures with the poor oppressed black looters and antifa trannies, lecturing Washington on human rights, and pledging support to the "moderate terrorists" i.e. the democrat mayors and governors who decide to not interfere with the looting and autonomous zones.

I think this would be the most epic troll ever. Especially if Venezuela then paraded some nervous spook and declared him the "legitimate president of the United States".

Or maybe, kek, just appoint Bernie the real president. "For two elections the corrupt system has denied this true hero his rightful position. Enough! We support the people's choice!" etc. Bernie would be all: "I don't know who these people are, honest," and they'd be: "stay strong, comrade, we shall help you in your fight to become a true people's president!"

Lot , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 6:55 am GMT
America's most pro-Israel President, the one who moved the embassy to Jerusalem and appointed a West Bank settler dude as ambassador, has both refrained from starting wars and is gradually bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, Germany, etc.

So much for the Jihadi/leftist smear that Israel's friends promote wars.

Trump: peace through strength and loyalty to America's true friends.

Marshall Lentini , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 8:35 am GMT

Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free.

Well said.

It's also really strange to portray Russia in this demonic fashion. When you see it up close, there are things you don't like or question, things that are bizarre, absurdly inefficient, and outright abhorrent, but it's far from the big threatening geopolitical beast they make it out to be. It's more of a joke which even Russians understand.

There's a phrase from the USSR that someone taught me – аналогов нет, "no analogues" or nothing comparable, referring to the quality of their military armaments, specifically rockets. Obvious nonsense pushed by the USSR to bolster faith in the populace, it lives on today in Kremlin propaganda, but is widely regarded as the bullshit it is, which is why videos containing the phrase itself are banned on YouTube Russia.

In short Russia, as a meme, is a "paper tiger" propped up largely by Washingtonian psychodrama and will-to-power. Washington doesn't want Russia out of Crimea because they love the Ukrainians; they want them out because Ukraine is a major destination for American corporate venality. Absent interference from Washington, the Kremlin might undertake some foreign adventures in neighboring countries, but for the most part would continue on its obvious path of "peacefully" melding with the Chinese economy, like everyone else.

There is no white nation free of the forces of decline set in motion by white success and the overall technological arc of history. "Russia" is nothing more than a scarecrow for the Washington establishment – which it could just as well drop, as they no longer need justifications or approval from the people – and signifies only a livid hunger for the last major market they've yet to absorb directly.

restless94110 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 9:04 am GMT

It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he has not started any new wars, though

It is difficult to read past an opening sentence such as this one.

I have seen it constantly. I call it the "Back-handed Trump hating fool" approach. The many writers who employ this method in their articles appear to believe that they literally have to make it clear to their readers that of course they (the writers) think Trump is a moron/cad/crook/criminal/mentally ill, BUT!!!

Then they proceed with the rest of their article.

But don't you (the reader) dare think that they think anything good about Trump!

This is childish bullshit and am I the only one who is completely sick of it?

Hey, Phil, how about you leave out the stupid back-handed Trump hating nonsense? You don't need to write it, but if you do? Have your editors cut it from your writing. It just makes you look stupid, and many won't even continue reading your article. As they should. No one deserves to be read who would write such facile, petty nonsense.

Proud_Srbin , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 9:07 am GMT
ANY country, real or satelite which allows ""diplomats from 5-headed beast or anglo-terrorist and marauding alliance deserve extinction.
God Bless DPRK!
Bill Jones , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 9:30 am GMT
Petty typo
"Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, "

"is" sb was (thank god)

I too find it appalling that these people move among us.

JWalters , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 9:39 am GMT
If we "follow the money", Hillary's campaign was financed by the Israelis. An honest post mortem on her loss would have focused attention on the huge influence of Israeli money on American elections. The faked focus on Russian "meddling" could have been to divert any talk of election "meddling" away from Israel's truly vast "meddling". (The Israelis routinely distract by accusing others of their own crimes.) The Israelis control both the DNC and the corporate media, so "Russiagate" could roll on virtually evidence-free. Fox was allowed to criticize the "Russiagate" attack on Trump, but only to keep the kabuki conflict boiling. Neither side ever mentioned Israel's "meddling", or in any way criticized Israel. To the contrary, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity even agreed that Netanyahu would be a great American president. So why did Israeli asset John Bolton just attack Trump, after Trump has given Israel so much, including assassinating Soleimani? Maybe it's Trump's refusal to launch Israel's next war? Maybe they don't really trust Trump? Maybe because on 9/11 Trump said he didn't believe planes could have brought down the twin towers, and that explosives must have been involved? Could Trump be in a deadly dance with the Israelis, riding a tiger?
Anonymous [661] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:08 am GMT
Nuland wrote that Russia did "violate arms control treaties, international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States " But wait a minute, doesn't she really mean Israel, not Russia?

And in retrospect, America's penchant for throwing little countries against the wall has never worked all that well. I'm thinking Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia.

Good article, Mr. Giraldi.

Larchmonter420 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:15 am GMT

Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.

Nuland might hate Russia, but Obama gave back Crimea to Russia the rightful owner on a Silver Platter. Russia has now easy access to Mediterranean Sea. Obama then invited Russia back to Syria, as the USSR was kicked out of Middle East by the Evil Kissinger after the Yom Kippur War ..

The rest is history. 20/20 is hindsight.

WHAT , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:21 am GMT
@Mr. Hack Exactly, it was a US financed provocation with a whole lot of extremely dumb stooges. Six years that have passed since prove it again and again, every day.

Whatever; "Ukraine" is not a state, "ukrainians" are not a people, "ukraininan" is just bastardized Russian/Polish mix, so to hell with this joke of a cuntry. Let Russia, Poland and Hungary partition it.

Robert Pinkerton , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:24 am GMT
A sub-set of our Jewish fellow Earth-walkers hates Russia, rodina and narod as ancestral heritage.

NATO should have been disbanded shortly after the Soviet Union fell, its bureaucrath given Certificates of Service and sent home.

Philip Giraldi , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:24 am GMT
@Bill Jones Thanks – corrected!
BL , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:57 am GMT

" It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, "

We could chalk this up to a lack of imagination on the part of our intrepid former CIA scribbler, but anyone paying even cursory attention couldn't help but conclude that the Obama administration didn't just tolerate, it choreographed, a plot against Trump in league with foreign intelligence services.

U.K., Ukraine, Italy, Australia, Russia, and, yes, Israel.

I'm confident that neither a lack of imagination or garden-variety ignorance explains Giraldi's narrative weaving. However open or obscured, staying on the remove Trump by any means necessary team remains the smart, if treasonous, play.

You'll note that Russia is included in this no doubt incomplete list. It really is a fool's errand to try to surmise for any of these foreign participants what of their actions were opportunism as opposed to resigned self-protectiveness,

But, make no mistake, every single one, foreign powers, whether allies or adversaries, and individuals and purportedly non-state entities, was promised goodies at the expense of the American national interest.

That's anyone's guess at this point. We know surveillance state bottom-feeder Glenn Simpson got at least $6M, and Stefan "Guttman" Halper about $1M. What do you think was promised to foreign powers for playing ball? In the case of Russia, unless I miss my mark, Nord Stream II was merely the down payment.

Maybe some day Giraldi will ask Brennan the contours of the deal he made Russia assistance in throwing the election to Hillary in March, 2016:

ThreeCranes , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 11:05 am GMT

" Russia is truly the mother load, with control over its natural resources, you control China, undermine the Middle Eastern Arab states and if necessary control Europe financially. Besides the direct political control you then exercise, on an economic level, the productive people of the world Germany and China then work for you."

Hear, hear!

Fred777 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 11:10 am GMT
Hold fast Russia, the globalists have nothing good in store for you.
Hapalong Cassidy , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 11:11 am GMT
Given all that has happened this year, I can unequivocally say that any white person who joins the US military needs to have their head examined. And a US military bereft of white people would be pretty much useless.
red rider , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 11:18 am GMT
Clinton actually bombed Yugoslavia/Sebia as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with Monica Lewinsky.
Z-man , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 11:23 am GMT
Philip said:

Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led,

Ok but the main reason 'Dubbya' went into Eye-Raq is because he wanted to 'get' Saddam for having gone after 'Big Daddy' Bush I. The Neochoens provided the cover.

Bill Jones said:

I too find it appalling that these people move among us.

Yes but Nudelman is also a laughable character now who's shelf life has expired, I hope.

JoaoAlfaiate , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 11:48 am GMT
Hoping for Peoria but getting Minneapolis and Seattle.
rienzi , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:02 pm GMT
Ignoring all arguments about who is on the side of the angels here.

There are a lot of countries that could hurt us badly in a shooting war, but we would survive, and at the end of the day, they would not. However, there is one country, and only one, that could completely erase us in a few hours, and that is Russia.

Seems insanely suicidal to run around poking the bear with a stick at every possible opportunity.

anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:03 pm GMT
For the gullible fans of Mr. Trump, who want so fervently to believe that he's trying to change anything but the rhetoric:

When I searched to confirm the name of that "diplomat" standing next to Ms. Nuland, I learned from an official website that he remains employed as such, now the face of Uncle Sam in Greece.

Geoffrey R. Pyatt, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, was sworn in as the U.S. Ambassador to the Hellenic Republic in September 2016.

He served as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from 2013-2016, receiving the State Department's Robert Frasure Memorial Award in recognition of his commitment to peace and alleviation of human suffering in eastern Ukraine.

What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into a gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?

If you can't handle the truth, just hit the Troll or Disagree button.

Robjil , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:07 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack It is called fool's gold.

They were promised the EU or riches from the EU.

Yet, the leader of the coup Nuland said these immortal words to start her coup:

"F–k the EU"

Nuland knew the real deal.

She was creating a Zion colony in Ukraine and nothing more than that.

geokat62 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:13 pm GMT

All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance its own security , to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.

Great article, Phil. May I recommend one minor edit:

All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance the Jewish State's security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.

Realist , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:15 pm GMT

The foreign interventionists really hate Russia

Ya think??? Is this supposed to be newsy?

Realist , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:17 pm GMT
@Hapalong Cassidy

Given all that has happened this year, I can unequivocally say that any white person who joins the US military needs to have their head examined.

That has been the case for decades.

Jake , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:18 pm GMT
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace' crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?

First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.

And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.

What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.

Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.

Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.

Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.

BL , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:22 pm GMT
@BL By the way, I will give you the commanding heights Sad Story in absurdly abridged form.

China won the post-Cold War period hands down. From Tiananmen Square to Ising power on the cusp of global hegemony in a quarter century. With the US paying the bill.

While there were clear indications to any honest observer years before, Snowden's coming out signaled the public next phase of a years long operation in which the USG built a global surveillance apparatus, including not the least of Americans, and then lost the whole shebang to Russia, China and God Knows Who Else.

My view then -- and I have seen nothing to even suggest my informed speculation was wrong -- was that the sky was the limit in terms of what the powers that be would gift in terms of the national interest to protect themselves from exposure and a reckoning.

I would like anyone who disagrees to otherwise explain how USG policy became one of driving China and Russia into a strategic alliance. To say nothing of putting obviously compromised individuals, foreign assets, like Brennan at the apex of power.

Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.

Uh huh. Read the NYT article -- Obama is no angel, but Giraldi should explain why President Obama would set up, much less publicly reveal, weekly sessions in which both he and the office of the president are grossly debased by the Director of the CIA?

geokat62 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT

Zionism is the Deep State – Rick Wiles

-- TruNews™ (@TruNews) June 22, 2020

Jake , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 12:52 pm GMT
In this article, this is the most important sentence in terms of showing how doomed America is: Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.

The DOOM is that no Liberal can ever acknowledge that as something a liberal, a sacred black liberal at that, would do without being forced to do so by white conservatives.

That insanity lies at the heart of America and has since at least the Emancipation Proclamation. It means that it is totally impossible to have a halfway meaningful 'liberal' opposition to imperialism, because imperialism is always easily cast as doing good for the downtrodden blacks and/or browns and/or yellows and/or Jews and/or Moslems.

anon [319] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:00 pm GMT
Too late, too fat, & too ugly! Nuland already lost the beauty contest for Biden's ventriloquist to Avril Haines, She-wolf of the DO. The rectal feedings will continue till morale improves!
Really No Shit , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:13 pm GMT
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair- blue eyed people who can easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)

And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!

Mr. Hack , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:36 pm GMT
@Robjil Nuland was about as interested in creating a "Zion colony" of Ukraine as Ron Unz (another Jew) is in creating one at this website!
Anonymous [112] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:41 pm GMT
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria . . .

More like the Castro District or Seattle, in fact.

BuelahMan , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:43 pm GMT
Vicky is a Dirty Woman:

A123 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:43 pm GMT

So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration.

Trump fired John Bolton. Pompeo is at most a shadow of Bolton. That is rather the opposite of resurgence. If the author could let go of his #NeverTrump bias he would be able to see that Trump has run the NeoCons out of the GOP.

Trump tried to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan and ran into Deep State obstructionism.

The Globalists tried to trick Trump into a Syria expansion by creating a Turkey/Syria battle through areas controlled by U.S. Troops. Trump refused to be manipulated and pulled U.S. Troops out of the kill sack. Does anyone still believe that myth about 'protecting Syrian oil'? Only the mentally dim accepted that ludicrous cover story. It was flimsy excuse to relocate out of the Deep State trap.

Prior U.S. administrations created huge problems in the ME by toppling Saddam and emboldening Iran's theocracy. "Cut and Run" would guarantee a nuclear arms race in the region. Trump's containment of Iranian colonial expansionism is working, albeit slowly. The Rial continues to slide (now at ~200,000 to the USD). At some point, the Iranian people will choose to get rid of their failed leaders and rejoin civilized society. Until then Trump's containment is better than a Biden invasion.

Trump has fundamentally reshaped the alignment of U.S. Politics. There is only one foreign interventionist party. The SJW Globalist DNC now owns both the NeoConDemocrats and the R2P crowd. The choice this November is clear:

-- Trump -- No New Foreign Wars
-- Biden -- Invasion of Ukraine, Iran, Libya, etc.


Desert Fox , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:50 pm GMT
Nuland is just the tip of the iceberg in the ZUS government, which is infested with zionists and has been in every administation since Wilson, they are the cause of every war since WWI right down to the middle east and in the case of the middle east wars, the zionists and Israel used their attack on the WTC to push America into the slaughter house for the greater Israel project.

Read The Protocols of Zion and the book The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, there is laid out the zionist one world zionist government.

chris , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Rahan HAHAHA, I'm still laughing !!! That's friggin hilarious, Rahan!!!
Bernie the cowardly comrade
Bill Jones , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:00 pm GMT
@Larchmonter420 It is little noticed that those Countries consumed by the evil Soviet Union have fared much better in conserving their culture and sense of self, after they were upchucked in the early '90s, than the Champions of Democracy of the West have done under the freedom and tutelage bestowed by the US.
Funny dat.
chris , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:09 pm GMT
@Hapalong Cassidy yeah, white or straight; the worst is if you're both
AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:19 pm GMT
Yes, Nudelman and her ilk are rabidly anti-Russian. But what they did in Ukraine revealed a very different thing: globohomo elites are mentally degenerate, they cannot foresee even immediate consequences of their moves. There was a joke in Russia that for the coup in 2014 in Kiev Obama deserves a medal "For the liberation of Crimea" (there was a medal of this name in WWII). There was another joke, that Ukraine without Crimea is like a purebred stallion without balls.

Neocons planned to make Ukraine a battering rum against Russia. They did not understand that a log rotten through and through cannot serve as a battering ram. Now they are stuck with that wreck ("you break it – you own it" rule) and don't know what to do with it. Previous US administration and DNC big shots (Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and Co) used it mostly as a rout of stealing US taxpayers' money. Current administration does not seem to have even this use for it. The US keeps proving the age-old wisdom that when you see your enemy committing suicide, do not interfere. Putin appears to have a huge stock of popcorn.

Bill Jones , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:20 pm GMT
@BL Bezos has done extremely well for acting as China's proxy in destroying the US economy.
Give the man a medal:
onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMT
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "

This "just" in: "War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne

Meaning, if you have governments in the first place, sooner or later, you will have war, either on the people inside a country [eg the war on drugs], or on citizens of another country, or both at the same time [i.e. what we have now].

Outside of complete dissolution of all states [ preferable in my opinion, but unlikely given the general mindset of the brainwashed masses worldwide], and given the systemic need of all states everywhere for evermore wars on their own, and on others populations, the only [ imperfect, and perhaps temporary], solution I see is to 95% downsize the federal government and restore the constitution and bill of rights and to thereby restrict the federal government to its original limits, and to even design new, more effective ways to prevent the federal governments further expansion beyond those original limits/chains.

"..the very idea of the State itself is poisonous, evil, and intrinsically destructive. But, like so many bad ideas, people have come to assume it's part of the cosmic firmament, when it's really just a monstrous scam.

It's a fraud, like your belief that you have a right to free speech because of the First Amendment, or a right to be armed because of the Second Amendment. No, you don't. The U.S. Constitution is just an arbitrary piece of paper entirely apart from the fact the whole thing is now just a dead letter. You have a right to free speech and to be armed because they're necessary parts of being a free person, not because of what a political document says.

Even though the essence of the State is coercion, people have been taught to love and respect it. Most people think of the State in the quaint light of a grade school civics book. They think it has something to do with "We the People" electing a Jimmy Stewart character to represent them.

That ideal has always been a pernicious fiction, because it idealizes, sanitizes, and legitimizes an intrinsically evil and destructive institution, which is based on force. As Mao once said, political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Doug Casey

Regards, onebornfree

Agent76 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the United States (2004)

For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so.

February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order

Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:25 pm GMT
@Bill Jones There is even funnier thing now with covid: the countries that do not toe the imperial line, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, are doing a lot better than imperial sidekicks like Brazil, Colombia, or Peru. Rephrasing old Russian saying, "tell me who is your friend, and I tell you how stupid you are".
chris , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:25 pm GMT
@Rahan To make the troll work even better, Venezuela could then send 20 guys in zodiacs to motor into DC and NY harbor to try to take over Dulles and LaGuardia airports, and when they got captured, they could just trade them for those 2 knuckleheads we sent down there. They could also claim that they're here to capture Trump; that might just get him handed over.

Rahan, you have to send your brilliant joke to CJ Hopkins and to Caitline Johnstone to get if more exposure.

Wizard of Oz , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:45 pm GMT
@anonymous You appear to be saying that a career diplomat who served in Ukraine when the US did or supported bad things there should not have been appointed as Ambassador to Greece. Is that a correct understanding of what you mean to convey? If so, how does this reflect on Trump when the appointment was made two months before he was elected?
JoaoAlfaiate , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMT
Before confronting the Russians, it might be a good idea to regain control of Minneapolis and Seattle ..
anonymous [400] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:52 pm GMT

So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance.

That's pretty much it, they just use different rhetoric to appeal to their constituencies. Might makes right; there is no other law beside bandit law. The Russians have been a barrier to the US being able to spread itself over the entire globe and rob everyone weaker than itself. The US was behind all these atrocious jihadi mercenaries even as it's pretended to be against them. The Russians stopped the US project of terror and overthrow in Syria and that's outraged the Americans who thought they could act as they pleased. Libya was destroyed by the wonderful, hip Obama who many stupid Americans still think was a nice person. But with Russia, they can huff and puff but can't blow their walls down. They have a military that can deter the Americans unlike all the other smaller victim states.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:53 pm GMT

Meaning, if you have governments in the first place, sooner or later, you will have war,

Funny, you sound like notorious Russian politician Zhirinovsky. He said: "there is no such thing as lasting peace, there is only prolonged armistice".

Wizard of Oz , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN The second joke should be withdrawn from active service. It is that of the naughty schoolboy who will say anything for a cheap laugh – in this case "balls. A well bred gelding will win races, be just as well fed and housed as the entire stallion and much more contentedly placid.
GMC , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:59 pm GMT
Right after those two Israeli puppets were dancing and talking on their open lined cell phones outside on Shitskyia St. in Kyiv, Ukraine, in front of the US Embassy, Ambassador Py Rat ended up going to the US Embassy in Greece, in order screw the Greek people some more, and Cookies Nuland ended up -- F n what's left of the island of Cyprus. US Embassies are nothin more than CIA offices and only idiots would leave them in their country.
Biff , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:20 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN Another Russian joke about Ukraine – that I will probably wreck but here goes:

How come you want to attack Donbass?

Because the Russians are there.

How come you don't actually attack Donbass?

Because the Russians are really there!

EliteCommInc. , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:33 pm GMT
"She accuses the Kremlin of having "seized" Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand."

I think this is a mistake. I think Miss Nuland knows exactly how large and intense the US ft print is and belies it should be larger and more intense. There are sincere people who believe that the US must as duty make the work safe for democracy even the means of getting there is any and everything bt democratic because in the long run -- the benefits will outweigh.

and as proof of er sincerity -- it's not just Russia (Though I understand why Dr. Giraldi would like to tackle one territorial issue at a time makes sense)

Herald , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:34 pm GMT
@Chris Moore

And half of America thinks Trump is nuts? It should look at the "intellectual Jews" it's so desperate to consign its fate to.

Of course, it should look at them, that's what Trump seems to be doing.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Biff I've heard another version of this.
Ukrainians are asked:
– If you believe that Crimea belongs to you, why don't you fight for it?
– We are not stupid, Russian troops are there.
– But you say that there are Russian troops in Donbass, yet you fight.
– That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
Rahan , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:48 pm GMT
Thank you for the kind words, Chris,
You're very welcome to share the gist of the joke anywhere you like, and add to it whatever you think works:)
peter mcloughlin , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:51 pm GMT
I agree that "backing Moscow into a corner with no way out" is a dangerous strategy. This is not the Cold War: in the Cold War the United States and USSR were able to keep peace, a balance of power, an equilibrium where neither side's vital interests were threatened. Russia had a buffer zone: not today. America was at the height of its global economic power: today it is being overtaken by China. In the Cold War the big powers avoided nuclear Armageddon – though at times appeared to come close – because they were able to. The misguided thinking today is: "we got through the Cold War we can get this". This is not a re-run of 1945-1991: it is the lead-in to the holocaust that period skillfully avoided.
GMC , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:54 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack I was in Ukraine and was a resident in 2008 even. Yanuk was a thief, but this was SOP in Kyiv – how do you think they all get rich ? Sure the people were protesting about corruption, but anyone who was really there know how easy it was to spread the riot when the western neo nazis are bussed in, the " cookies" end up being money paid to certain groups and out of work peasants. Yanuk was trying to short sell Ukraine's farmland etc. to many corporations and countries. He was taking money from Monsanto, Carghill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa Univ. and even China started to build a deep water port in Crimea , in order to grow on the 200,000 hectares they wanted to lease. Russia always gave the Ukies a decent loan or gaz price { esp. for Princess Jewish Tymoshenko who up the price for her takings }, not to mention the million or so that worked in Ru. A Perfect storm , for as far back as when , in 2005, Senator B Obama , brought 40 million in cash to Donetsk, in order to de- arm the Ukrainian military. This Maidan and Ukrainian plan was well planned – decade or two earlier – Pravda !
Herald , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Bill Jones China's proxy?
Shaman911 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:00 pm GMT
For one thing. PRESIDENTS of any country "DO NOT START WARS" It's always Jewish Bankers.
Nuland is Jewish so what else is there to talk about?
Alfa158 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:13 pm GMT
Mr. Giraldi ; do you think Vicky is angling for the Secretary of State position in the upcoming Biden administration?
Have you given any thought to who Biden will be told to select for the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor slots where they will be leading the charge for war?
I think it is possible that Bolton may have been angling for one of those spots with his current book tour, but that has obviously blown up in his face.
Really No Shit , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:15 pm GMT
@BuelahMan Dirty Vicky wanted to do statuesque Julia you know where!
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:41 pm GMT
@Anonymous I thought that bit was comic relief.
anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:42 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz OK, as you give off more than a whiff of effete hack yourself, I'll bite.*

Yes, that's what I mean to convey. It reflects on President Trump -- and, more particularly, his sham campaign rhetoric -- that the likes of Mr. Pyatt remain in place with another Exceptional! plaque on his lavish office.

Do you mean to convey that the President can't replace ambassadors at will, or that they have tenure?

-- --

*Before interacting with this "Wizard of Oz" character, be aware that he/she/they often draw other commenters in with questions and requests that are seldom resolved to his/her/their satisfaction, or with cryptic insinuations that distract discussion.

The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter, the technique known as "sock puppetry." See under Mr. Derbyshire's February 15, 2019, article comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting as "Anon[436]."

Among this website's oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:44 pm GMT
@GMC Let's give credit where credit is due. Yes, the Empire wanted to buy Ukraine, preferably on the cheap (considering that the goods were not of the first quality). But for the sale to proceed you need two sides. You need a fraudster and a sucker. You cannot consider morons who sold their would-be country for beads blameless. Not to mention that many local thugs got a cut. Smarter thieves took their loot and ran away, like Yats. Dumber and/or greedier ones, like Porky and Kolomoisky, remained and kept trying to steal more. The suckers (the rest of the population) are left holding the bag. Stupidity is always punished in the end, but not always so severely.
Mr. Hack , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT
@GMC Although one has to be careful in dealing with the large multinationals, the only way to obtain large contracts is through cooperation with them. Opening things up and building ports would have resulted in large employment opportunities for the masses, adding some stability to the Ukrainian economy.

I'm not aware of Senator Obama's dealings in Donetsk to "de-arm the Ukrainian military". Please do tell me more.

Chris Moore , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 4:56 pm GMT

Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.

So basically, they're Jewish parasites with delusions of grandeur who attached themselves to the British Empire and American Empire (destroying the US Constitution along the way), and are using its decaying WASP blood and treasure to set up an Anglo-Zionist Empire, which will then morph into a Zionist Empire, which will then move its headquarters to Israel, which will then fulfill "chosen" Zionist Jewish supremacist prophecy and theology of ruling the world.

In other words, they're not only parasites, but they're insane parasites. Really, could there be any other kind? The insanity is baked into the parasite.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:00 pm GMT

What should we expect of a President that would brag about luring an Iranian leader into a gangland hit with an invitation to discuss peace?

I am confident that, in my lifetime, the truth about how that unfolded will never be known. The intel for the hit came from the Israelis through the same people that have been undermining him from Day 1. Did Trump actually know Soleimani was there on a peace mission? Did Trump know that an Iraqi leader would be with Solmeimani? Why would de-escalation of tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia be bad for Trump who has been avoiding staring wars? Was Mattis in on that game?

Once the hit was done, the rest is creating a narrative for diversion. It was a shit show, to be sure, but I suspect there is a lot more to this than what we are being fed.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:01 pm GMT
' Michael Ledeen, "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." '

Now, if that 'small, crappy little country' could be Israel, me 'n Mike could have a real meeting of minds.

but I suppose that's not what Mike meant.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:06 pm GMT
' Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy '

That might well be, but maybe there is a way out.

Think maybe if Russia abandoned its support for a state in Syria and let Israel have her little way with the place that she might suddenly be left in peace?

Nahhh couldn't possibly be a connection. How could that influence our policy?

FLgeezer , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:10 pm GMT
@anonymous >Among this website's oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.

Agreed. I suggest he/she/it be referred to henceforth as the Wizard of Odds.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:16 pm GMT
' Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War '

This always happens with winners -- be they World War One generals or Cold Warriors.

If, due to other factors entirely, they happen to finally triumph, it all becomes attributed to their incredible genius.

The oddity is that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. It was a massively unattractive system with no natural constituency beyond its own bureaucrats. Yes, it had to be kept at bay, and we did do that -- but we basically merely watched while it collapsed under the weight of its own internal flaws.

Kouros , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 5:34 pm GMT
American Oligarchy really wants to take over the Russian economy and assets (as well as China's and Iran's)
Pat Kittle , says: Show Comment Next New Comment