|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
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the ‘military [industrial] media,’ The military makes money by making war;
they buy the media to promote war... The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak
to a captive audience of uninformed viewers… The military controls the media because they own them.- John Bosnitch
Pseudoscience > Who Rules America
|News||National Security State||Recommended Links||The Deep State||The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies||Classified America: Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ?||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism|
|Neo-fascism||Neoconservatism||Predator state||American Exceptionalism||New American Militarism||Ethno-lingustic Nationalism||Nation under attack meme|
|Corporatism||War is racket||Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law||National Socialism and Military Keysianism||US and British media are servants of security apparatus||War is a Racket - Incredible Essay by General Smedley Butler||Economics of Peak Energy|
|National Security State / Surveillance State||Big Uncle is Watching You||Social Sites as intelligence collection tools||Is Google evil ?||Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition||Military Bureaucracy and Military Incompetence||Bureaucratic Collectivism|
|Color revolutions||Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair||Nulandgate||Sanctions against Russia||Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17?||The Far Right Forces in Ukraine||Russian Ukrainian Gas wars|
|The Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum Homepage||Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few||History of American False Flag Operations||JFK assassination as a turning event in US history||Mystery of Building 7 Collapse||Allan Dulles|
|Understanding Mayberry Machiavellis||Ron Paul||War and Peace Quotes||Corporatism quotes||Politically Incorrect Humor||Humor||Etc|
Due to the size the introduction was moves to a separate page
If the ability to anticipate future dangers for the nation is the mark of a truly great president then Dwight D. Eisenhower would be the greatest president of the XX century. But because he appointed such a devious person as Allen Dulles as the head of CIA and supported covert actions his record is very mixed and contradictory. He was addicted to "covert actions" and did not have a clear understand of the concept of "blowback"
In any case, he was the last Republican president to deliver broad-based prosperity. During his presidency, the gains from growth were widely shared and the incomes of the poorest fifth actually grew faster than the incomes of the top fifth. As a result, America became more equal than ever before or since. Under Ike, the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans reached 91%. Eisenhower also presided over the creation of the interstate highway system – the largest infrastructure project in American history — as well as the nation’s biggest expansion of public schools. It’s no coincidence that when Eisenhower was president, over a third of all private sector workers were unionized. Ike can’t be credited for this but at least he didn’t try to stop it or legitimize firing striking workers, as did Ronald Reagan.
At the same time Dwight D. Eisenhower was an architect of the USA "deep state" and subverting by deep state of the remnants of constitutional republic that survived WWII. As part of his own contribution to the creation of military-industrial complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became DARPA.
The backbone of military industrial complex is not Pentagon (although it is definitely the important part of it). It is three letter agencies such as CIA, FBI, NSA and ONI. David Talbot's book The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government fingers CIA director Allen Dulles as the person who plotted and directed the JFK assassination, and portrays him as a psychopath who managed to rise to the high echelons of power. Unfortunately, the book has problems with history, as explained by David M. Barrett in this review. And the story of rise of power and influence of CIA, FBI and NSA is the key part of the story of the US military industrial complex. With the key personal role of Eisenhower in this rise. In other words he was the actual creator of "regime change" machine within the CIA (America's Legacy of Regime Change by Stephen Kinzer):
It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early 1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change operations, much less explained why he favored them.
BTW it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who appointed Dulles brothers to CIA and State Department creating the most dangerous and reckless tandem the USA history ever known and putting the last nail into the coffin of constitutional republic. It was his administration that organized coupe on Iran deposing legitimate government and installing a puppet regime, the prolog of many color revolutions accomplished the USA ever since (including Chile, and many other Latin American republics, and later the xUSSR space). See The Brothers John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War Stephen Kinzer.
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|"All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give
their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately,
the general population goes along with the idea... That's the issue that I've been exploring:
How did the Republic turn into the Empire ... and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?
Star Wars filmmaker George Lucas
Jun 06, 2020 | www.rollingstone.com
James Mattis and other generals have sent the political class into delirium with their Trump criticism, but there are better voices for this moment than the authors of America's forever warsAndy Kroll
Rolling Stone Washington bureau chief@AndyKroll Follow ,
Here come the generals.
A procession of decorated former U.S. military leaders has spoken out in recent days to gravely denounce President Trump and his unmistakably authoritarian response to the demonstrations against police violence and racial injustice sparked by the death of George Floyd.
James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general, accused Trump of shredding the Constitution with the violent removal of protesters outside the White House so that Trump could stage a photo op. Mattis, who was Trump's first secretary of defense, said Americans were "witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership."
John Allen, a retired Marine Corps four-star general and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, warned that the "slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020," the day of Trump's crackdown and photo op. "Remember the date. It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment."
Mike Mullen, a retired Navy admiral and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military position in the country, penned an essay titled "I Cannot Remain Silent" in which he wrote that Trump's conduct "laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces."
Jun 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
gwilliard , Jun 6 2020 5:12 utc | 99@25 & @27 & @51 & @69
I think NemesisCalling nails it here best of all, with keen nuances. I can't hear the sax without thinking of Bill Clinton, Mr. Mass Incarceration himself, playing on Saturday Night Live, and seducing black America and its turncoat elite, including Obama, for the next two decades of neoliberal ruin. The malcontribution to American black society of its entertainment and sports aristocracy could be fat treatise. So nice to see James Baldwin getting at the heart of things in his 1965 lecture.
Sorry, Antifa and its KKK tactics – beating people up, trashing the homes of academics, shutting down discussion on campus – speak for themselves. Goons hardly better than their sworn opponents.
Some items worth reading:
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/judith-butler-force-of-nonviolence-interview/ > see comment taking her down
@69 - The Verso ebooks on policing are free if you register an account. You have to pick ebook only, not paired with paperback.
anonymous , Jun 6 2020 5:15 utc | 104@norecovery | Jun 5 2020 23:48 utc | 64
Anyone familiar with the Church Committee hearings knows that government agencies use agent provocateurs to corrupt movements from within. Knowing that doesn't prove any of the claims made herein. Without evidence it's all speculation. Speculation can be fun but when it gets taken seriously we have idiots shaping the narrative.
Jun 04, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat , Rod Dreher , and Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements, including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win. And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he once told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let's let Andy Ngo –who has shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the breakdown of society."
We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric, along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of support for the street radicals. As Reuters reported on May 30,"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively bragged about them.
It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds, Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"
When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."
So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent, if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."
There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing, and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have died in the recent violence. One such is Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, which the radical-chic types at The New Yorker described as "A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."
Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as they mumble about the violence.
And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that happens: The Russians did it.
Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."
We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance, on the front page of China's Global Times .
Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and anger.
Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.
Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party -- including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that they like Democrats back.
Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.
To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the RealClearPolitics polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.
Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically centrist America.
For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to "justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917, when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.
Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today, that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.
To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.
With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no price at all.
In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.
Jun 03, 2020 | www.unz.com
As American cities burn and people are murdered in the street with impunity by groups protesting the death of George Floyd, very little reporting has been done on who exactly is responsible beyond tweets from Donald Trump about the mobs being led by "Antifa" (Anti-Fascist) -- an umbrella term anarchist organizations use as propaganda when trying to win liberal support for paramilitary attacks they conduct on nationalist protesters and Trump supporters.
The mainstream media has played its role in intentionally obfuscating who exactly the groups inciting the rioting and killing are by claiming "antifa" is not a group, which is a malicious half-truth. Law enforcement sources, Andy Ngo , and Fox News have identified two organizations as playing an active role in the carnage: The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement and The Base .
These two groups are interlinked, and currently encouraging and organizing the violence in the New York City area.
Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement and The Base
The Base, whose Facebook page is now explicitly telling people to commit acts of violence, is an above ground "organizational space" located at 1286 Myrtle Ave in Bushwick, Brooklyn.
According to reporting in a Brooklyn publication from 2013, the "anarchist collective" is run by Elysa Lozano, an assistant professor at LaGuardia Community College who wears her violent extremist views on her sleeve, and Khalid Robinson, a man who according to an interview on an anarchist podcast is the organizer of the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement in New York City.
Robinson, pictured above with Lozano, can be seen wearing an "antifa" t-shirt sold as part of a fundraiser for the "Tinley Park 5," a group of anarchists who were arrested for brutally injuring 10 people in a premeditated hammer attack in the Illinois suburb of Tinley Park in 2012.
According to Robinson's interview on the "Solecast," he helped start The Base as "a place for anarchists to meet."
It is unknown how much criminal activity is planned at this venue, but it is a bug light for left-wing extremists from across the country and abroad. The group uses images of explosions as its logo , and has close ties to the Kurdish terrorist militia in Syria, the YPG, which has provided many American anarchists with military training undoubtedly being used in the riots as we speak.
The front is also an operating space for groups like the NYC Anarchist Black Cross, which is composed of "antifa" members and used as an above ground way to raise money and write prisoners letters.
A photograph obtained by open source intelligence shows masked "antifa" members the media claims don't exist posing in front of The Base.
As for Khalid Robinson's Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, they do not hide what they are about. As Fox News' Lara Logan has reported , they believe in engaging in racial violence against white people and random police officers in the name of overthrowing "white supremacy."
The group has two flags, one featuring a red AK-47 on a black banner, and another showing a red star with the acronym "RAM."
An image of masked RAM members posing with shotguns, AK-47s, machetes and an "antifa" flag was obtained by National Justice .
This group has been operating for years, spreading violent propaganda with the help of social media companies, all while the FBI devotes all of its resources to chasing around imaginary "white supremacist terrorists."
The extent of their terrorist activities is unknown, but they have been very active in the George Floyd riots -- calling it a "black liberation revolt" -- and have chapters across the country.
Related "Antifa" Extremists In Brooklyn
Christian Erazo is another important figure in organizing anarchist violence in New York City.
Erazo, pictured above on the far right in the red and green bandana filming a video announcing plans to disrupt public transportation, was profiled for his activities by National Justice last January for his part in planning the J31 subway riots . In spite of this reporting, the NYPD and the FBI took no action either against the people who planned this chaos, or the Synagogue who allowed them to host their planning sessions.
Erazo, the lead singer of punk band (A) Truth pictured above clutching the "antifa" flag, helps lead multiple violent anarchist projects, such as Brigada 71 (a left-wing soccer hooligan group associated with the New York Cosmos) and NYC Antifa . Brigada 71 spends a lot of time at the East River Bar, a popular hangout for left-wing soccer hooligans, on 97 South 6th Street in Brooklyn,
Both groups are also currently encouraging the violence on social media and are close to the owners of The Base, who let them use the venue for their activities. Meet up spots like The Base play an important role in providing fresh recruits due to its storefront visibility, which invites curious and bored hipsters and radicalizes them in the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood.
For years, Erazo used a warehouse on 258 Johnson Ave in East Williamsburg nicknamed "The Swamp" to host punk rock shows that would serve to recruit new anarchists. While Erazo and his friends did their best to keep the spot a secret, a Brooklyn hipster publication listed "The Swamp" as a cool place to see music as recently as 2015. Erazo is specifically named as its "founder."
According to a source familiar with the anarchist community, when music wasn't playing, the building had a gym and was used to conduct paramilitary training. While there doesn't seem to be any more concerts happening at The Swamp, it is unknown if these anarchist groups are still utilizing the space for other activities.
The Real Reason Its Difficult to Prosecute "Antifa"
Many Americans have complained that neither the police nor the FBI appear interested in investigating or prosecuting anarchist paramilitary groups, even when they are leading the worst and most deadly riots in modern history.
This isn't because it is hard to find out who these people are. It is due to state corruption and privilege. A large number of anarchists are the sons and daughters of politicians, bankers, judges, and other connected elite figures, thus immunizing from the consequences of their crimes.
Recently, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio's own daughter was arrested among the rioters in the city he governs. Vice presidential contender and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine's son is another example. An "antifa" organizer was exposed by National Justice as the grandson of a judge and nephew of a Congressman who is also now a judge.
Ken Klippenstein, a digital blogger who is a fan of the anarchist groups dubbed "antifa," was leaked documents by FBI agents about with details about an ongoing investigation into the activities of these violent extremists.
With virtually every institution in America expressing support for these terrorist groups, along with their connections to powerful officials, Donald Trump's bluster about labeling them a terrorist group appears to be nothing but a gust of hot air.
ThreeCranes , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 1:18 pm GMTIt's obvious from surveillance video that Floyd was dealing drugs out of his parked car on the corner that fateful morning. The cops apprehending him appear nonchalant, quietly going about their business with a routine arrest. Only when Floyd begins physically resisting do things begin to go south.JimDandy , says: Show Comment June 4, 2020 at 7:17 pm GMT
So this is the hill that liberals choose to take a stand and die on. Defending a low-life, street drug dealer, who has three cocaine priors on his rap sheet. And when legitimate, unrelated businesses burn, they say, "Good. That's justice for Floyd."
And they can't see how insane this is? How is Floyd's life worth all this havoc? The guy was a criminal deviant who brought his demise upon himself. He was not a sterling example of a freedom fighter or a high-minded social reformer. He playacted not being able to walk, collapsing on the sidewalk as he was being escorted to the cop car. Went all jelly-legged. Winced when a cop merely steered him by one of his burly arms which, while handcuffed behind his back were obviously not overly constrained. Play acting. Oh, the poor 230 lb. black boy, built like Hercules himself, acting all hurt when an Asian male puts a little directing pressure on his arm.
What a despicable farce. There's no hope for a nation in which different sides play by different Rules. The Left obeys no Laws. Acknowledges no limits to their behavior. Acts according to what will best advance their cause. Has no compunction about lying, about destroying their enemies by any means, fair or foul, possible.
If factions within a Nation will not and do not agree on basic Rules of the Contest, then no governance is possible. That Nation will, indeed, degenerate into anarchy. This just is . For some reason, someone wants America to fracture into smaller units.@ThreeCranes I mean, he did five years in Prison for bursting into a woman's house with 5 other thugs and jamming a gun into her gut during an attempted robbery. (I heard she was pregnant, but I'm not sure.) She was battered, though. This is their great Saint.Alden , says: Show Comment June 5, 2020 at 4:25 am GMT@JimDandy She was pregnant black and had a miscarriage because of the beating that huge man gave her.jbwilson24 , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 1:51 pm GMT" the NYPD and the FBI took no action either against the people who planned this chaos, or the Synagogue who allowed them to host their planning sessions."Beavertales , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 2:25 pm GMT
Well, surprise surprise. Violent left wing groups hold planning sessions in Synagogues.
The 'Russian' revolution and others in Eastern Europe followed the same pattern.
It's all political theatre. Antifa, supported by Jewish money, rails against 'white privilege', never daring to point out that most of the powerbrokers and influencers (eg, bankers, Hollywood studio owners, blackface performers, publishing house owners) are Jews.Leftist revolutionary radicals enjoy the support and protection of the establishment which appoints them 'the good guys'.fnn , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 5:47 pm GMT
If you are a conservative, you have no overt support from professors, journalists, politicians, or trend-setting celebrities. You're labeled 'the bad guys'.
If given an informed choice, the Silent Majority of Americans would side with young conservatives over young anarchists. The problem is that the other side is ahead in a culture war, and the right is only just getting on its feet to fight it.@anonymous It just takes a few seconds to search "kurds +antifa" and find more than a few stories.
Jun 05, 2020 | www.truthdig.com
... ... ...
Fascism by Trial in the Age of Trump
In a thoughtful analysis, the Irish journalist O'Toole asserts neoliberalism creates the conditions for enabling what he calls a trial run for a full-blown state of contemporary fascism:
To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialed is fascism -- a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget 'post-fascist' -- what we are living with is pre-fascism. Rather than overthrow democracy in one full swipe, it has to be undermined through rigged elections, the creation of tribal identities, and legitimated through a 'propaganda machine so effective that it creates for its followers a universe of "alternative facts" impervious to unwanted realities.' . Fascism doesn't arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from, and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it. 40
Ultra-nationalist and contemporary versions of fascism are gaining traction across the globe in countries such as Greece (Golden Dawn), Hungary (Jobbik), India (Bharatiya Janata Party), and Italy (the League) and countless others. ...
... ... ...
Trump has elevated himself as the patron saint of a ruthless neoliberalism. This is evident in the various miracles he has performed for the rich and powerful. He has systemically deregulated regulations that extend from environmental protections to worker safety rules. He has enacted a $1.5-trillion tax policy that amounts to a huge gift to the financial elite and all the while maintaining his "man of the people" posture. He has appointed a range of neoliberal fundamentalists to head major government posts designed to serve the public. Most, like Scott Pruitt, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Betsy DeVos, the secretary of Education, have proved to be either corrupt, incompetent, or often both. Along with the Republican Congress, Trump has vastly increased the military budget to $717 billion, creating huge financial profits for the military-industrial-defense complex while instituting policies that eviscerate the welfare state and further expand a war machine that generates mass suffering and death.
Trump has reduced food assistance for those who are forced to choose between eating and taking medicine, and his policies have prevented millions from getting adequate health care. 43 Last but not least, he has become a cheerleader for the gun and security industries going so far as to call for the arming of teachers as a way to redress mass shootings in the nation's schools. All of these policies serve to unleash the anti-liberal and anti-democratic passions, fears, anxieties and anger necessary to mainstream fascism.
... ... ...
The United States is in a dangerous moment in its history, which makes it all the more crucial to understand how a distinctive form of neoliberal fascism now bears down on the present and threatens to usher in a period of unprecedented barbarism in the not too distant future. In an attempt to address this new political conjuncture, I want to suggest that rather than view fascism simply as a repetition of the past, it is crucial to forge a new vocabulary and politics to grasp how neoliberal fascism has become a uniquely American model for the present. One way to address this challenge is to rethink what lessons can be learned by interrogating how matters of language and memory can be used to illuminate the dark forces connecting the past and present as part of the new hybridized political nightmare.
The Language of Fascism
Fascism begins not with violence, police assaults or mass killings, but with language. Trump reminded us of this in 2015 while announcing his candidacy for president. He stated, without irony or shame, that "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime...
... ... ...
Neoliberal fascism converges with an earlier form of fascism in its commitment to a language of erasure and a politics of disposability. In the fascist script, historical memory becomes a liability, even dangerous, when it functions pedagogically to inform our political and social imagination...
Unsurprisingly, historical memory as a form of enlightenment and demystification is surely at odds with Trump's abuse of history as a form of social amnesia and political camouflage,,,
... ... ...
At the same time, the corruption of language is often followed by the corruption of memory, morality and the eventual disappearance of books, ideas and human beings. Prominent German historians such as Richard J. Evans and Victor Klemperer have made clear that for fascist dictators, the dynamics of state censorship and repression had an endpoint in a politics of disappearance, extermination and the death camps.
...neoliberal fascism has restructured civic life that valorizes ignorance, avarice and willful forgetting. In the current Trumpian moment, shouting replaces the pedagogical imperative to listen and reinforces the stories neoliberal fascism tells us about ourselves, our relations to others and the larger world. Under such circumstances, monstrous deeds are committed under the increasing normalization of civic and historical modes of illiteracy. One consequence is that comparisons to the Nazi past can whither in the false belief that historical events are fixed in time and place and can only be repeated in history books. In an age marked by a war on terror, a culture of fear and the normalization of uncertainty, social amnesia has become a power tool for dismantling democracy. Indeed, in this age of forgetfulness, American society appears to revel in what it should be ashamed of and alarmed over.
... ... ...
Trump's selective appropriation of history wages war on the past, choosing to celebrate rather than question fascist horrors. The past in this case is a script that must be followed rather than interrogated. Trump's view of history is at once "ugly and revealing."....
The production of new narratives accompanied by critical inquiries into the past would help explain why people participated in the horrors of fascism and what it might take to prevent such complicity from unfolding again. Comparing Trump's ideology, policies and language to a fascist past offers the possibility to learn what is old and new in the dark times that have descended upon the United States. The pressing relevance of the 1930s is crucial to address how fascist ideas and practices originate and adapt to new conditions, and how people capitulate and resist them as well.
...Neoliberal fascism insists that everything, including human beings, are to be made over in the image of the market. Everyone is now subject to a paralyzing language of individual responsibility and a disciplinary apparatus that revises downward the American dream of social mobility. Time is now a burden for most people and the lesson to draw from this punishing neoliberal ideology is that everyone is alone in navigating their own fate.
At work here is a neoliberal project to reduce people to human capital and redefine human agency beyond the bonds of sociality, equality, belonging and obligation. All problems and their solutions are now defined exclusively within the purview of the individual. This is a depoliticizing discourse that champions mythic notions of self-reliance and individual character to promote the tearing up of social solidarities and the public spheres that support them.
All aspects of the social and public are now considered suspect, including social space, social provisions, social protections and social dependency, especially for those who are poor and vulnerable. According to the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, the subjects in a "neoliberal economy do not constitute a we that is capable of collective action. The mounting egoization and atomization of society is shrinking the space for collective action. As such, it blocks the formation of a counter power that might be able to put the capitalist order in question." 65
At the core of neoliberal fascism is a view of subjectivity that celebrates a narcissistic hyper-individualism that radiates with a near sociopathic lack of interest in others with whom it shares a globe on the brink of catastrophe. This project is wedded to a politics that produces a high threshold of disappearance and serves to disconnect the material moorings and wreckage of neoliberal fascism from its underlying power relations.
Neoliberal fascism thrives on producing subjects that internalize its values, corroding their ability to imagine an alternative world. Under such conditions, not only is agency depoliticized, but the political is emptied of any real substance and unable to challenge neoliberalism's belief in extreme inequality and social abandonment. This fosters fascism's deep-rooted investment ultra-nationalism, racial purity and the politics of terminal exclusion.
We live at a time in which the social is individualized and at odds with a notion of solidarity once described by Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse as "the refusal to let one's happiness coexist with the suffering of others." 66 Marcuse invokes a forgotten notion of the social in which one is willing not only to make sacrifices for others but also "to engage in joint struggle against the cause of suffering or against a common adversary." 67
One step toward fighting and overcoming the criminogenic machinery of terminal exclusion and social death endemic to neoliberal fascism is to make education central to a politics that changes the way people think, desire, hope and act. How might language and history adopt modes of persuasion that anchor democratic life in a commitment to economic equality, social justice and a broad shared vision? The challenge we face under a fascism buoyed by a savage neoliberalism is to ask and act on what language, memory and education as the practice of freedom might mean in a democracy. What work can they perform, how can hope be nourished by collective action and the ongoing struggle to create a broad-based democratic socialist movement? What work has to be done to "imagine a politics in which empowerment can grow and public freedom thrive without violence?" 68 What institutions have to be defended and fought for if the spirit of a radical democracy is to return to view and survive?
Jun 05, 2020 | www.unz.com
SunBakedSuburb , says: Show Comment June 5, 2020 at 4:02 pm GMT"A large number of anarchists are the sons and daughters of politicians, bankers, judges, and other connected elite figures"
Says a lot about the managerial class that serves the wicked elites.
Oct 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Photo by jcrakow | CC BY 2.0
" Fascists are divided into two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists ."
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady descent into violence.
Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were "good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on Antifa.
Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times , The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of all those by revolutionary anarchists.
The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists."
Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.
The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.
The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements led by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the "nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough, the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.
This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.
Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).
The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.
Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party
Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.
In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.
As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon was to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally, they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".
They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of informal self-appointed inquisition.
As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.
Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later. Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism, anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.
Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.
Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author, activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was François Ruffin, film-maker, editor of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mélenchon's party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.
The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.
The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.
In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Républicaine led by François Asselineau was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau" (a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".
In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views – that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.
The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.
The Franco-African comedien Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002 for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech – such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonné has been banned from the media, sued and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to war.
Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonné can have serious effects on individuals in more precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.
In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar associations.
The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party.
I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more or less disguised.
Silencing Necessary Debate
One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair. Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."
This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".
However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel. Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak and practically ineffectual.
We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness" as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.
The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism. This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations in which they find themselves.
The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration. Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated. It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.
In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?
A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries. The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries, most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration. The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.
The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines.
American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang.
That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.
In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.
Wild Goose Chase
In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves.
Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.
The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.
The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war leads to defeat.
Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies, the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people: the right to free speech and assembly.
* "Où va la démocratie?", une enquête de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction de Dominique Reynié, (Plon, Paris, 2017).
Jun 26, 2019 | www.unz.com
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
Jun 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
interlocutor , Jun 21, 2019 6:13:43 PM | 186The Babylon Bee: Report: Internet Users Who Call For Attacking Other Countries Will Now Be Enlisted In The Military Automatically
U.S. -- A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.
People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.
"Frankly, recruitment numbers are down, and we needed some way to find people who are really enthusiastic about fighting wars," said a DOD official. "Then it hit us like a drone strike: there are plenty of people who argue vehemently for foreign intervention. It doesn't matter what war we're trying to create: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China---these people are always reliable supporters of any invasion abroad. So why not get them there on the frontlines?"
"After all, we want people who are passionate about occupying foreign lands, not grunts who are just there for the paycheck," he added.
Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly ceased.Note: The Babylon Bee is the world's best satire site, totally inerrant in all its truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.
The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly 6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.
If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.
Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.
Mar 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian , Mar 30, 2019 7:51:28 PM | linkHere is an insightful read on Trump's (s)election and Russiagate that I think is not OT
Taibbi: On Russiagate and Our Refusal to Face Why Trump Won
The take away quote
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Dec 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com
... ... ...Part 1 - Meet the Antifascists - 0:53 Part 2 - Fascism - 8:18 Part 3 - Violence - 20:47 Part 4 - Free Speech - 39:58 Part 5 - There Is No Peaceful White Nationalism - 53:30
Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion - http://tinyurl.com/y9a569vy
Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism - http://tinyurl.com/yab2r3sm
Auden & Isherwood – On the Frontier - http://tinyurl.com/y8c8w3sc
BadMouse Productions: Spotting Fascism – ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0rRg... )
Bray, Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook - http://tinyurl.com/y7nwsr6c
Burgdörfer: "Sterben die weißen Völker?”
Cacho, Social Death - http://tinyurl.com/yalbdhkb
“Debating the Alt-Right,” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPa1w... ),
“Decrypting the Alt-Right” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4BV... ),
“The Left” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuN6G... ),
“Does the Left Hate Free Speech?” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDh... ),
“Why White Nationalism is Wrong” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyV0y... )
D’Souza, The Big Lie - http://tinyurl.com/ydavsb82
Faludi, Backlash - http://tinyurl.com/ycnjhv5s
Fang, Delete Your Account Podcast, E63, “Punching Nazis”
Herman & Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent - http://tinyurl.com/ybd3rots
Hermansson, “My Year Inside the Alt-Right” https://alternativeright.hopenothate....
Hitler, Mein Kampf
Hobbes, Leviathan - http://tinyurl.com/y98m5tf7
Kesīqnaeh, Fascism & Anti-Fascism: A Decolonial Perspective http://tinyurl.com/y9m36ckv
King Jr. - Letter From A Birmingham Jail - http://tinyurl.com/ovcktqb
Mill, On Liberty - http://tinyurl.com/y9ajospk
Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism - http://tinyurl.com/y7s6u3xt
Purkis & Bowen (ed.), Changing Anarchism - http://tinyurl.com/y9sdobpp
Raz, “Authority, Law, and Morality” - http://tinyurl.com/ybm5fmhb
Richardson, What Terrorists Want - http://tinyurl.com/y82wpbj6
Robets, Fatal Invention http://tinyurl.com/ybdfgvwh
Satre, “Anti-Semite and Jew” - http://tinyurl.com/y9qmncya
Schmitt, Political Theology and The Concept of the Political http://tinyurl.com/ycsgxlga & http://tinyurl.com/y7v2vojl
Shaun – “The Great Replacement Isn’t Real - ft. Lauren Southern” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxV... )
Ture, Stokely Speaks - http://tinyurl.com/y7fz2hpj
Vasquez, “The Poor Person’s Defence of Riots” https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/...
Wilson, “What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters” https://www.thenation.com/article/wha...
A Short Documentary About the Battle of Cable Street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiZFy...
apprenticehera , 1 day agoGluemonkey , 6 hours ago (edited)
I remember reading in my Abnormal Psychology textbook that in the early 1900s, the mentally ill in the United States were forcefully sterilized to prevent them from "breeding" which made me take a step back and realize that I was never once taught this in school and I was only ever taught that the United States were (almost) always the good guys. Eugenics has a deep rooted history in America and it's terrifying.
NOT being taught something in school is not automatically insidious and disturbing. BEING taught something toxic or deflective in school IS automatically insidious and disturbing. In school I was taught roughly 0.000000000000000001% about things that are and things that have been.
Carolina Madeira , 1 day agoKirikan Kuu , 1 week ago
Hello! I´m from Brazil and your videos have helped me to deal these awful days and, also, to understand how Bolsonaro supporters think (if this is possible!) Neonazi and fascists movements were marginal and formed only for small groups in Brazil in last decades, despite always considered dangerous. Now, these movements have been appeared in pro-bolsonaro parades and it´s really scare! Much of this video match with it has happened right now in Brazil!Al Muarikh , 1 week ago div
div> We shouldn't give up on the entire system due to amendable flaws and corruption (debt-based commercial banks, multinational companies, cheap labor, etc), and attempt to replace it with a weak and unstable mob rule. People always find a scapegoat, whether it's another ethnic group, authorities, or smart and prosperous individuals, which escalates the situation. Class wars are like other wars, and we'd all end up living in tents and flats, eating powdered crickets and working to death "for the common good" and in order to "end exploitation". Many countries have a mixed economy regulated and supervised by the state, and you have a chance to negotiate a proper wage or become an entrepreneur. Social democracies provide all citizens tax-funded healthcare and university level education, while allowing competition, and being capable of maintaining peace and order, even if the exact same model wouldn't work everywhere, and there could be improvements.Rackergen , 5 months ago (edited) div tabindex="0" role="arti
> 54:30 fun fact: In 1964 Brazil suffered a Military Coup backed by the CIA/US. At the time leading to the coup, the petite-bourgeois that thought themselves "the people" organized some marches. The names of the marches were something like "March of the Families with God for Liberty", and they marched bearing several posters accusing the then President Jango of being a communist, saying that "Brazil wouldn't turn into a Cuba". Brazil was in a decade-long turmoil and the President at the time decided to take some Nationalization attitudes and whatnot, so he was obviously accused of being a communist, despite not even being a socialist. So the great fear of communism was implanted in the Brazilian people's mind via those marches and subsequently, less then a month later, the Fascist Military Coup was widely accepted as the unfortunate best solution against communism. Needless to say that TO THE DAY there's a great denial of a Coup, they created a narrative in which they lead people into believing the Military Junta really saved Brazil from becoming Cuba. The result of it is that it's 2020 and the Brazilian President is an Army Captain, his VP is an Army General, and several of his Ministers are also Generals, during the COVID-19 Pandemic we have an "Operational President" named by the High Command of the Armed Forces who is a General, and guess what? The President and his lackeys are AGAIN shouting about the imminent Communist threat, this time forming armed Paramilitary Groups trained in Ukraine by the Pravyy Sektor. If anyone out there sees this comment, keep it in mind and save it, for in about 1-2 years we'll be having an unambiguous Military Dictatorship in Brazil, AGAIN.Ben Rogue , 5 months ago
cle"> 12:22 "It's important to note that fascism is not a wholly different government from the one you might know and it did not end in 1945. For instance, most of these features I described would also, in milder forms, describe a certain American presidency. That's right. The Reagan administration" *glaces to date of the video*Thaïs Caprio , 2 months ago div tabindex="0" role="a
So, by the 'textbook definition' of Fascism, pretty much every right-leaning politician in the U.S and almost every right-wing pundit is a Fascist. Which isn't surprising, considering how far the overton window has moved rightward and how far right the Democratic party is. You can probably attribute this shift to how pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist the donor class is and how that affects the make-up of the political parties.Chris Woycik , 1 year ago
rticle"> 41:20 just wanted to add another example that I know a lot about. In France, the only protest that haven't been repressed by the police are the protests from fascists (La manic pour Tous, Syndicats de Police, Generation Identitaire). Other protests like the Yellow Vests, Feminist night marches, strike protests, etc... (we've had a lotta protests in France these past years) are always repressed. But what I want to talk about is the violence that counter protesters are facing from the police. We have to be careful not to get hit or hurt by fascists but also be careful of violence and arrests from the police. The very violent far right organization (and very very racist) Generation Identitaire got to protest with thousand of policemen to protect them. My girlfriend and I were asked (forced) to leave because we had a gay flag. The police in France is extremely violent, and maybe not as much as in other countries such as Chile, but the violence keeps increasing and it keeps getting more dangerous. As someone who regularly goes to protests, I consider myself very lucky and very privilege for never getting badly hurt by a cop. My lungs do suffer the consequence of the constant breathing of lacrymo gas ahah Anyway, I just wanted to develop an example of another rich European country. (sorry for English mistakes)Mark Von , 12 minutes ago (edited)
"Every border implies the violence necessary to maintain it..." That's a throw-away line that had me stopping and thinking like god damn. LeftTube has definitely made me a more thoughtful person as a whole.Matt NA , 1 day ago
ANTIFA defines fascist as, a cult of purity, victimhood, abandonment of liberty, and redemptive violence. Doesn't it sound like they are defining themselves? (Antifa - The Handbook for Antifascists)The Procastinators , 3 months ago
I've just started to watch and I'm concerned about that facist checklist. Trump meets quite a few of the criteria with his response to what's going on at the moment...so it is somewhat hypocritical that he wants to label antifa as a terrorist organisation when in fact anti facist movements are not an organisation (as you explained in the beginning). Possibly another diversion tactic so people don't look at at Trump and his reaction to the violence.Stephanie Jean , 1 hour ago
"Fascism is not a wholly different kind of government from the one you might know ..." Laughs in 2020
Trump: Antifa is a terrorist group Intellectuals: It's not a specific group tho...
Jun 02, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say, 'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
-- Mark Perry (@markperrydc) June 2, 2020
Feral Finster • 35 minutes ago • editedAccording to the standards set by the Trump administration when the Guaido coup first launched, the video footage of these protests is full justification for a foreign nation to directly intervene and remove Trump from office by force right now.
Jun 02, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Back in 2018, my friend Zachary Yost suffered his way through Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook , a primer on the group written by (but of course!) Dartmouth lecturer Mark Bray. What he found was a chillingly lucid call to revolution that subordinated all else to the goal of overthrowing capitalism and the "Far Right." So free speech, for example, is dispensable, valuable only to the extent that it enables the coming flames. Yost writes:
By the time he's finished, Bray has thrown everything and the kitchen sink into the category of fascist ideologies that must be targeted, ranging from whiteness to "ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others." Though cloaked in calls to stop oppression, Bray's book at its core makes the case for the exercise of raw, unbridled power. Under this revolutionary ideology, no dissent can be tolerated. There can be no live and let live -- it is all or nothing.
In fairness, Antifa is a wide and somewhat amorphous umbrella, some of whose members may not subscribe to everything Bray says. But what the more committed among them seem to understand is that, come lawlessness, power will flow naturally to he who has the most muscle, he who's most willing to pick up a brick and throw it, at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. Remember that tonight when we inevitably see more violence in the streets. Senselessness is the point. Preying on the innocent is the goal.
Remember after Charlottesville when some on social media compared these guys to the American soldiers who fought the Nazis at Normandy? I don't want to hear another word about that. Antifa may stand for antifascist, but Yost's piece makes it clear that they're fascist to their marrow. And as with many latter-day fascists and extremists, Antifa are simultaneously cogent at the manifesto level and utterly delusional as to likely outcomes. They aren't going to overthrow capitalism or Donald Trump. They may, however, affect the election in five months, with the most likely beneficiary the president they so despise.
These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage.
Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced.
This is how a Franco ends up in power: because even churches are being targeted, even the moderate leftists aren't safe. Bully people long enough and they long for a bully of their own. That Antifa has desecrated the protests over George Floyd's death this way is appalling and I wish them nothing but the worst.Matt Purple is a senior editor at The American Conservative .
Scroop Moth • 19 hours agoI can picture anarchists setting fire to Minneapolis, but I was always under the clear impression that ANTIFA was really, really, focused on outing neo-nazis, punching marchers in the face, and deplatforming the ALT-RIGHT. God's work! Why in the world would they torch Popeyes?J Villain • 18 hours agoOne of the Fox news affiliate stations had reported looking at the paper work for people arrested in their city and said that 80% of the people arrested were from in state. That was after both Trump and Barr had claimed they were almost all from out of state. If they lied about that what reason is there to believe that the rest of their claims are true? What evidence is there other than a report of a pallet of brick (how do you unload it with out a forklift?) being left some where what evidence is there that all of this is co-ordinated and not just random thugs? Why is the assumption that they are left leaning or tied to the Democratic party? At least one of the people caught breaking windows, carrying an umbrella and masked was an off duty police officer which generally lean to the right. I know a 25 year old man was arrested for burning a court house. The young tend to lean left but also tend to act irrationally with out a cause. Is there any actual evidence to point to this being Antifa or are we just supposed to take POTUS's word for it?RCPreader J Villain • 15 hours agoTrump and Barr merely picked up on claims from the governor of MN and mayor of Minneapolis. They did not originate the claim that the rioters were from out-of-state.madamX RCPreader • 14 hours ago
Uh, the assumption that they are left-leaning comes from the fact that they spray-paint left-leaning things, and shout left-leaning things.
I haven't heard anyone claim that they are tied to the Democratic Party, but many Democratic Party politicians have avoided condemning them, and many Democratic Party-backing commentators/journalists have openly defended them.
The NYC Police Dept. reports that they have in their possession communications among Antifa units making detailed plans for riots in places like NYC days before the riots occurred.
Something like a thousand people have been arrested now in these riots. How many of them have been identified as right-wing or right-leaning? I don't know of a single one. You don't think these lefty Dem mayors and the MSM would be parading any evidence they had of right-leaning rioters?The Minnesota Freedom Fund is also being funded by politically correct Hollywood leftists. If Minneapolis really is a right-wing insurrection highly disguised, it's fooled the woke crowd unmercifully.Zgler • 14 hours ago"The destruction of businesses we're witnessing across the US is not mereWilliamRD • 4 hours ago
opportunism by looters. It plays a critical role in antifa and BLM
Grouping Black Lives Matter together with Anti-Fa is a good propaganda effort, but those groups have different focuses. Anti-Fa is a reaction to the neo-Nazis, but it is also home to a lot of anarchists.
Black Lives Matter is focused on African American rights and an opposition to police brutality. If you look at their web site, it is all about civil rights both in the U.S. and internationally. They also have a stated agenda of supporting LGBTQ rights. It's hard to find any ideology in favor of looting. In fact, they are on-record in support of minority-owned (capitalist) businesses and economic development.Lessons from Weimar Germany for the Portland Extremists
Jun 02, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say, 'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
-- Mark Perry (@markperrydc) June 2, 2020
Earlier in the day yesterday, audio has leaked in which the Secretary of Defense referred to U.S. cities as the "battlespace." Separately, Sen. Tom Cotton was making vile remarks about using the military to give "no quarter" to looters. This is the language of militarism.
It is a consequence of decades of endless war and the government's tendency to rely on militarized options as their answer for every problem. Endless war has had a deeply corrosive effect on this country's political system: presidential overreach, the normalization of illegal uses of force, a lack of legal accountability for crimes committed in the wars, and a lack of political accountability for the leaders that continue to wage pointless and illegal wars. Now we see new abuses committed and encouraged by a lawless president, but this time it is Americans that are on the receiving end. Trump hasn't ended any of the foreign wars he inherited, and now it seems that he will use the military in an llegal mission here at home.
Megan S • an hour ago
The military is the only American institution that young people still have any real degree of faith in, it will be interesting to see the polls when this is all over with.
May 29, 2020 | www.unz.com
Concluding one of America's more infamous obscenity trials in 1964, Justice Potter Stewart absolved a controversial French motion picture with an opinion that has since passed into common parlance: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it , and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
The opinion was celebrated at the time as a victory for freedom of expression, and paved the way for a later deluge of Western cultural degradation. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that almost 60 years later "I know it when I see it" has become a political philosophy in its own right, adopted and pursued by a radical Left intent on curtailing that very same freedom by claiming an exclusive and unaccountable ability to define Fascism. This was the starkest message from The Burkean 's unprecedented recent Irish Antifa Project , which was designed to infiltrate and expose self-styled Antifa networks in mainstream Irish academia and politics.
In my view, the most predictable revelation from the Irish Antifa Project was the extent of historical and cultural ignorance among the profiled activists. None of the intellectually and professionally mediocre individuals exposed by The Burkean appeared capable of articulating what Fascism was, or is alleged to be today. Fascism instead seems to have been adopted by these non-entities as a vague catch-all for anything touching upon capitalism, conservatism, religion, or tradition. Equally vague are the proposed activist methodologies of these individuals, which range from the compiling of databases with the names of those deemed to be Fascists, to tentative but deniable support for violence. With the exception of a small number of fanatical Jews like Trinity College student Jacob Woolf , "anti-Fascism" has evidently been adopted by the majority of those concerned as a kind of half-hearted virtue signaling hobby or political side gig, albeit one with sinister potential.
Unfortunately, the problems posed by an uninformed, unaccountable, and unhinged "anti-Fascist" radical Left aren't helped by the fact confusion about the nature of Fascism is endemic in society as a whole. There are essentially three traditions when it comes to explaining Fascism. One can be found within Fascism itself, and demonstrates how self-defined Fascists see themselves. This material is overwhelmingly historical. Another tradition can be found in contemporary mainstream academia and, although biased, it is at least academic in style, serious, and relatively comprehensive. The work of the late Roger Griffin is perhaps the best available in the English language in terms of this tradition, and is also largely concerned with history.
The third tradition, on the other hand, is popular, highly politicised, always concerned with contemporary politics, and is abridged to the point of being a pop-Left caricature of serious studies of Fascism. It is particularly problematic because it has tremendous traction among the masses and, despite being propaganda for extremist politics of its own sort, always presents itself as objective and neutral.
The individuals profiled by The Burkean are unquestionably disciples of the latter tradition, a recent example of which is Jason Stanley's How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018). Stanley, a Jewish professor at Yale whose background is in language and epistemology and not history or politics, hasn't published any peer-reviewed material on Fascism or anti-Fascism, but his 2018 book proved a moderate publishing sensation because it represented a thinly veiled attack on the Trump administration.
The same administration provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein ( Can it Happen Here? ), Madeleine Albright ( Fascism: A Warning ), and Harvard duo Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ( How Democracies Die ). All of these individuals are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky's Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the Frankfurt School's project on the "Authoritarian Personality," Jews have been at the forefront of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity.
They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping "anti-Fascism" as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism, "Jews know it when they see it," a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without question.
Jewish Definitions of Fascism
A common theme in influential books like Stanley's, destined for a modicum of success in the paperback mass market thanks to dramatic titles and relentless marketing, is their incredibly -- and deliberately -- vague definition of Fascism. These Jewish activists know this, of course, but they push ahead regardless. Stanley, for example, excuses the gaps and logical leaps inherent in his dubious study by arguing that "generalization is necessary in the current moment." But if he is defining the "current moment" as Fascist under his generalized definition, isn't he simply using generalization to excuse the same generalization? Isn't this tantamount to saying to his readers: "The present moment is so obviously Fascist that we really don't need to define Fascism"?
Such considerations don't slow Stanley down for a second, and this celebrated Yale professor slips off the hook to pronounce, even more unhelpfully, "I have chosen the label "Fascism" for ultranationalism of some variety." What variety? What's his definition of "ultranationalism"?
It doesn't matter. What is clear in texts like Stanley's is that you aren't here to be encouraged to think or ask questions, but to absorb a discourse and accept a dogma. The authority behind such demands stems predominantly from emotional blackmail -- Stanley cashes in his card as the son of "Holocaust survivors," and explains that "My family background has saddled me with difficult emotional baggage. But it also, crucially, prepared me to write this book."
His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right.
... ... ...
Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of Jewish propaganda disguised as "anti-Fascist" literature. The key features of such works are invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate "warnings" to some aspect of contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and "emotional baggage."
Underlying the surface veneer, these works are highly focussed efforts to pathologise aspects of White culture and politics deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. These efforts, and their framing, are quite obviously derived from Cultural Marxism, especially Adorno's work with the Frankfurt School on The Authoritarian Personality , and from earlier forms of Jewish activism witnessed from the end of the 19th century and culminating in Weimar Germany (e.g. the work of Magnus Hirschfeld).
The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of "warning literature" as inherently Fascistic.
It is very worrying that our culture has bequeathed a great deal of respect and legitimacy to Jewish intellectuals, especially in relation to the subject of Fascism. We have allowed them to assert that "they know it when they see it." The fundamental crisis of our civilization is that they see it everywhere, and they won't rest until this phantom of their paranoia, and us with it, are abolished.
 J. Whittam, Fascist Italy , (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 81-2.
 See, for example, S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political Propaganda (1940).
Paul , says: Show Comment May 29, 2020 at 6:54 pm GMTGiven the Zionist treatment of the indigenous Palestinian people, it is odd to hear Jews complain about fascism.Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment May 30, 2020 at 12:22 am GMTTrue fascism is about exposing and exploring the true nature of power.Observator , says: Show Comment May 30, 2020 at 12:22 am GMT
Jews are crypto-gangster-fascists who project 'fascist' fantasies on the other.
A diversionary trick.Fascism's unforgivable sin was its spot-on critique of the failure of liberal democracy, which, it argued, was the inevitable result of its corruption by capitalism. Eighteenth century liberalism broke the power of absolutism but in time it devolved into a reactionary movement, redirected specifically to defuse the popular revolutionary socialism of the nineteenth century, which Germany revived.Johnnie Tumbleweed , says: Show Comment May 30, 2020 at 5:02 am GMT
The elephant in the liberal living room is the embarrassing reality that capitalist society is organized on the exploitation of one class by another. Fascism spoke the inconvenient truth that the ideals of the Enlightenment – equality, individuality, democracy – must collapse into institutionalized injustice under the all-pervasive directive of the primacy of the private accumulation of capital over all other concerns.
In this way, fascism is the thinking person's version of Marxism, stripped of the latter's absurd mismeasures of human nature. Fascism restored the traditional fabric of society, placing the needs of the national community above the selfish whims of the individual. In so doing it gave to otherwise alienated individuals the sense of common purpose and connection to others that are so vital to mental health.
And only a strong authoritarian state can claim and effectively wield the power necessary to undo the damage that capitalism does and to contend with the many domestic and foreign adversaries which a truly class-free social revolution inevitable creates.
No wonder the mortal adversaries, western imperialism and Soviet communism, were so terrified of this existential challenge to their oppressive systems that they made temporary common cause of ruthlessly annihilating Germany in history's most destructive war.This is one of the best written, most informative and useful articles ever published here. But the photograph of Madelaine Albright in particular should have been accompanied by some sort of warning. "Hideous crone" understates the horror.obvious , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 1:53 am GMT@Observator You lost me at "strong authoritarian State". Which human monkeys were those? How is the already strong authoritarian State bad but if only a new set of talking human monkeys is "recognized", that will make everything better and different?Malla , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 9:32 am GMT
Fascism is the cry of the lower middle class who do not understand how things work or where they came from. It is an urban tryharder phenomenon. Very short attention spans.
George Orwell understood this: he was tolerant but realistic, and "conservative" in a natural way, all the time grasping the nature of Capitalism, that man needs to be set free not governed by others. Liberal Democracy is just a means to stablise government instead of civil wars.
Personal liberty and private order are much more important and effective than grasping schemes.@obvious "Hitler" is realizing that Vulture Capitalism and Marxist Socialism have the same elite masters and revolting against it in the interest of the people.Verymuchalive , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 12:55 pm GMT@Pheasant True, and he makes no mention of Paul Gottfried's Fascism: the Career of a Concept. Although Jewish, Prof Gottfried is a paleoconservative and his books are always carefully written. His work on Fascism is probably the best recent work on the subject. I don't know why Dr Joyce didn't mention it.The Germ Theory of Disease , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 7:41 pm GMTInteresting (and alarming) essay by Dr.. Joyce. Alarming because the sheer relentlessness and vindictiveness of these people is matched only by the vacuity, shallowness and spite of their ostensible "intellectual" product.The Germ Theory of Disease , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 8:10 pm GMT
A few thoughts
1. Actual real Fascism is of course dead as a doornail, and has been since the 1950s at the absolute latest. The word "fascist" is simply a bogeyman, used by Jews and their playthings to frighten the public, to sell books, and to denote whatever naughty thing they don't happen to like at the moment -- as Dr. Joyce shows. (So-called "Islamo-fascism" is, if possible, even funnier as a name-calling stunt, and more mistaken, than calling Trump a fascist.)
2. In macro-historical terms, the only reason we pay any attention at all to real fascism is that it ended in a massive train-wreck, as so many things do (who fusses over the far more impact-laden bloodbaths of Timur the Lame these days?). But unluckily, since the Jews' ox got gored as well in the general wreckage, the Owners Of All Megaphones will never ever shut up about it. That's all this really ever is, innit.
3. Again in macro-historical terms, what Fascism really was, in the broadest sense, was simply one among several rather crude and clumsy attempts made in the early Twentieth Century to make some sort of sense out of the confusing, and very very recent, transformation of economic, political and industrial terms brought about by the sudden onset of the Machine Age. In the same way that it was the unknown effects of the Machine Age which made the Great War such a vaster cataclysm than previous wars, the Machine Age rattled every single bar in every single cage of the European order. Fascism was only one of the rather brutish attempts to navigate the new terrain. (to be continued)4. We no longer worry about fascism, or have to deal with it, for two reasons. One, it was decisively defeated militarily and discredited ideologically; and two (and more importantly), we no longer live in the Machine Age! We moved very quickly into the Technological/Information Age, and from there into the Immigration/Industrial Outsourcing Age. Fascism was an attempt to solve the problems of undernourished semi-literate White men with large families who lived in urban slums and who worked in giant factories full of deafening machinery. That political constituency has ceased to exist.Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment June 1, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
5. Centuries from now, the Peruvian robot historians will tell a very different story about the Second World War, which was of course the apotheosis and endgame of fascism, than the story we tell ourselves now -- or rather, allow the Jews to tell for us, when they aren't screaming it at us and drilling it in with sleep-deprivation techniques.
Levels of apportionment can be argued over, but it's certainly true that the Jews bore substantial responsibility for the actions and circumstances that led to the war. It could be argued that one of its chief architects was none other than Henry Morgenthau. In any event, the robots will view the early career of Hitler as a sort of premature German version of Gandhi -- Hitler kicked the Jewish Empire out of Germany, and got the Germans out from under the Jewish yoke, in the same way that Gandhi kicked the British Empire out of India. But the Jewish Empire (which did and does exist in Europe although not on maps, controlling institutions rather than territory, yet making war and peace just like other nations all the same) did not go quietly, and instead mustered its British, American and Soviet satrapies to pursue proxy revenge. The Hitler regime of course then degenerated through its own failures into madness, incompetence, stupidity and evil, but the ball was already in play.
The point of bringing this up is the role of Jewish vindictiveness in keeping Fascism afloat as a zombie all-purpose threat to all and sundry. The "threat of fascist evil" is simply the threat of a nation or people getting the zany unacceptable notion into their heads that their country might after all be better off without Jews in charge.
And that calamity cannot of course even be thought about or spoken of, much less implemented.Defining fascism's easy. 'Antifa' is out there reprising early fascism right now.
You physically attack people who disagree with you. It's not complicated.
May 29, 2020 | nationalinterest.org
TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn interviews Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov about the New START Treaty and the state of U.S.-Russia relations.
Jacob Heilbrunn : What is your assessment of the state of U.S.-Russia relations?
Sergei Ryabkov : The current state of our bilateral relations is probably worse than we have experienced for decades preceding this current moment. I don't want to compare this with Cold War times because that era was different from what we have now -- in some ways, more predictable; in some ways, more dangerous. From Moscow's perspective, the Trump era is worrying because we move from one low point to another, and as the famous Polish thinker Jerzy Lec said once, "We thought we had reached the ground, and then someone knocked from beneath."
This is exactly how things happen today. We try hard to improve the situation through different proposals in practically all areas that pull Moscow and Washington apart. It doesn't happen. We recognize that everything that is associated with Russia policy is now quite problematic, to put it mildly -- quite toxic for the U.S. mainstream in the broader sense of the word. But the only answer to this, we believe, is to intensify dialogue and search for ways that both governments, businesses -- structures that impact the general mood of the public -- maintain and probably deepen their interaction and discourse so as to remove possible misunderstandings or grounds for miscalculations.
One of the most troubling areas in this very dark and dull picture is of course arms control. There we see a downward spiral that is being systematically enhanced and intensified by the U.S. government. It looks like America doesn't believe in arms control as a concept altogether. Instead, it tries to find pretexts to depart from as many arms control treaties, agreements, and arrangements that Russia is also a party to. This is very regrettable. But make no mistake: we will not pay any price higher than the one we would pay for our own security in order to save something or keep the U.S. within this system. It's squarely and straightforwardly the choice that the American government may or, in our view, even should make -- because we still think that the maintenance of these agreements ultimately serves American national interests.
Heilbrunn : What is your view of the Trump administration's approach to the START Treaty?
Ryabkov : I can easily say that the Trump administration's approach to the START Treaty is quite strange. Number one: we understand the reasons why the Trump administration wants China to become a party to any future arms control talks or arrangements -- although we equally understand the reasons why China doesn't want to be part of these agreements, and thus we believe that it's up to Washington to deal with Beijing on this issue. And in the absence of a very clear and open and considered consent from the other side -- that is, from China -- there would be no talks with China or with China's participation. That's an obvious reality that we face.
So the next element of this logic brings us to the natural conclusion that it would be in everyone's interest just to extend what we have now -- that is, a new START in the form as it was signed and subsequently ratified -- and then defer contentious issues and unresolved problems, including the one that is associated with U.S. non-compliance with this treaty, to a later point. An eventual extension of the treaty for five more years would give sufficient time to both Washington and Moscow, and eventually for others, to consider the situation and make decisions not in a hurry but with due regard to all aspects and to the gravity of the challenges before us, including those associated with new military technologies. But again, we are not there to trade this approach for anything on the U.S. side, to get something from the U.S. side in return. I think it's quite logical and natural as it stands, so we invite the U.S. to consider what we are telling them at face value.
Heilbrunn: Traditionally, Russia has worked well with Republican administrations starting with Nixon. Is that era at an end?
Ryabkov: I don't know. It completely depends on the U.S. We do believe that irrespective of what party is in the government in the U.S., there are choices; there are opportunities; and there are possibilities that at least should be explored with Russia. I don't know if this administration regards Russia as a party worth having a serious dialogue with. I tend to believe it's not because of domestic political reasons, because of different approaches to matters that are quite obvious at least for us, including the international system of treaties and international law in general.
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in effect become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international instruments were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this approach would serve U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never suggest that it was for us -- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were imposed upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is totally rejected by Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration, weeks before it departed, stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic immunity, and we are still deprived of this property by the Trump administration. We have sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama and the Trump administrations demanding the return of this property, only to see an endless series of rejections. It is one of the most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?" Both are bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to Washington on different topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has become a rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an entity that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a source of trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect and defend themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the people around the world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
Heilbrunn : If President Trump were to respond to your last point, he might say, "What's wrong with uncertainty from the American perspective? What's wrong with keeping your adversaries off balance? Why should the U.S. be a predictable power?" What would your response be to that?
Ryabkov : My response to this would be that we are not asking the U.S. to be a responsible and predictable partner because we don't believe it would be possible any time soon. We are saying that this is a reality that we all face, and thus we only adjust our own reaction and our own response to it trying the best way possible to protect our own interests.
Heilbrunn : Related to that, and on the START Treaty, a Trump administration State Department official recently announced that the U.S. was ready, essentially, to bury Russia, to spend it into the ground in a new arms race just as it had in the 1980s.
Ryabkov : To bring it into oblivion.
Heilbrunn : Right. What is your response to those kinds of threats?
Ryabkov : There is no response. We just take note of it, and we draw our lessons from the past. We will never, ever allow anyone to draw us into an arms race that would exceed our own capabilities. But we will find ways how to sustain this pressure, both in terms of rhetoric and also in terms of possible action.
Heilbrunn : What does this kind of rhetoric imply for the future of an extension of the START Treaty? Doesn't it suggest that the treaty may in fact already be doomed and that the Trump administration is using China as a poison pill to kill the treaty altogether?
Ryabkov : On China, I think the U.S. administration is obsessed with the issue, and it tries to introduce "Chinese discourse" into every single international issue at the table. So it's not about the START Treaty. It's much broader, deeper, and it's by far more multifaceted than anything that relates to arms control as such. My view on this is that chances for the new START Treaty to be sustained are rapidly moving close to zero, and I think that on February 5, 2021, this treaty will just lapse, and it will end. We will have no START as of February 6, 2021.
Heilbrunn : Do you feel the American stance toward Russia is inadvertently helping to promote a Russia-China rapprochement that is actually not in Washington's interest?
Ryabkov : We don't think we can operate on the premise that because of some pressure or some external impact on us, something happens in terms of the evolution of priorities or approaches to China or to anyone else. We don't believe the U.S. in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and conclusions are less related to what America is doing than to many, many other things. And we cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further. Heilbrunn : The U.S. is pushing very hard against China right now, at least rhetorically. China has vowed to smash any Taiwanese move toward independence and looks to be cracking down in Hong Kong as well. Do you see this as another instance where American overt bellicosity ends up boomeranging and pushing its adversaries to take more drastic measures?
Ryabkov : Of course, it's not possible for me to judge what China will do in those cases or in those instances, but I do think that every single area where the U.S. believes there is an opportunity to pressure China is being currently used in a most energetic and most forceful manner. I think it clearly entails a further growth of uncertainty in international relations. I still hope though that at some point, the natural instinct to talk and agree and conclude deals will prevail rather than this ongoing effort to squeeze something out of others -- not only China, but Russia and others who tend to follow their independent policy from America.
Heilbrunn : In this regard, when it comes to Russia -- because you see the U.S. as trying to increase the pressure on Russia as well -- do you draw a distinction between President Trump and his administration, or do you see them as aligned in their approach toward Russia? Because during the 2016 election campaign, Trump was explicit about trying to revive the U.S.-Russia relationship.
Ryabkov : No, I see no lines anywhere. I see no distinction, as you have described. Moreover, I see no distinction between the previous administration and this one.
Heilbrunn : Let me put it another way: what about differences between Trump and his own advisers? Do you think Trump himself is inclined to take a more diplomatic route, or do you think that U.S.-Russia policy is being driven by him?
Ryabkov : I don't know who drives U.S. policy toward Russia. We welcome any signal from the Americans, including from the President himself in favor of improvement, in favor of going along, and we are prepared to bear our share in this. But unfortunately, it doesn't work. And I suspect to some extent that it's also my own fear that in my modest position, I was not able to offer anything to my bosses that may help to change things for the better.
Heilbrunn : Final question: do you think that matters, at least in the area of arms control, would change under a Biden presidency? Because the Democrats are much more sympathetic to arms control agreements than Republicans currently appear to be. What's your take?
Ryabkov : I have no idea how things will unfold in relation to the forthcoming election in the U.S. No predictions, no expectations. I do think, though, that it would be very late in the process for any administration -- including the second Trump administration if he is reelected -- to deal with the issue of a new START extension after the day of elections in America. I think more broadly that the current, almost one-hundred percent watertight anti-Russian bipartisan consensus in the U.S. doesn't promise much good for this relationship for the future, irrespective of who wins the next election. So we will see. We will continuously work hard to try to devise alternative paths forward, but we have no partner on the American side.
Sergei Ryabkov is Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.
Jun 01, 2020 | www.antiwar.com
Antiwar.com contributing editor Danny Sjursen appeared for an extensive interview with Jimmy Dore:
May 31, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Meanwhile, what is going to happen to assorted fascisms? Eric Hobsbawm showed us in Age of Extremes how the key to the fascist right was always mass mobilization: "Fascists were the revolutionaries of the counter-revolution".
We may be heading further than mere, crude neofascism. Call it Hybrid Neofascism. Their political stars bow to global market imperatives while switching political competition to the cultural arena.
That's what true "illiberalism" is all about: the mix between neoliberalism – unrestricted capital mobility, Central Bank diktats – and political authoritarianism. Here's where we find Trump, Modi and Bolsonaro.
...Even if neoliberalism was dead, and it's not, the world is still encumbered with its corpse – to paraphrase Nietzsche a propos of God.
And even as a triple catastrophe – sanitary, social and climatic – is now unequivocal, the ruling matrix – starring the Masters of the Universe managing the financial casino – won't stop resisting any drive towards change.
... Realpolitik once again points to a post-Lockdown turbo-capitalist framework, where the illiberalism of the 1% – with fascistic elements – and naked turbo-financialization are boosted by reinforced exploitation of an exhausted and now largely unemployed workforce.
Post-Lockdown turbo-capitalism is once again reasserting itself after four decades of Thatcherization, or – to be polite – hardcore neoliberalism. Progressive forces still don't have the ammunition to revert the logic of extremely high profits for the ruling classes – EU governance included – and for large global corporations as well.
-- ALIEN -- , 2 minutes agoCheap Chinese Crap , 10 minutes ago
Allowing the continued uncontrolled exploitation of planetary resources will lead to global ecosystem collapse, killing most humans.Leguran , 1 hour ago
Good God, it 's like this guy is giving a seminar in technocratic buzzword salad recognition.
"It takes someone of Marx's caliber to build a full-fledged, 21st century eco-socialist ideology, and capable of long-term, sustained mobilization. Aux armes, citoyens."
Aux armes, indeed. But not to erect an oligarchy of self-appointed experts to rule us with an iron hand. I rather prefer the idea of pulling them off their comfy, government-compensated sinecures and dragging them down into the mud with everyone else.
Anyone who thinks they are better qualified to run your life than you yourself is an enemy of the Enlightenment. Away with them all.mtumba , 2 hours ago
Something worthwhile to note is missing among Pepe's carnage....
What has happened is that every imaginable organized group from doctors to pilots to lawyers, to farmers, to pharma companies, etc. has carved out a special slice of the economy especially for themselves.
In Feudal times rivers could not be navigated because cockroach lords would charge fees to use the rivers. That is exactly the same arrangement today but instead of using force of arms, laws are used. Our economy is choking on all these impediments.Snout the First , 3 hours ago
I agree that we need a revolution, and that the .01% globalist "elites" have proven to be not only craven, arrogant and greedy - but also stupid beyond redemption.
But I don't believe Marxist Social/Communism is the answer, as it has proven to always fail, as it is at complete odds with human nature. It drains creativity and productivity because they aren't rewarded, and it rewards laziness and inertia, because the absolute minimum of effort results in the barest level needed to survive, which - oddly - is enough for many.
I think it would be great to give actual capitalism a try, with extremely limited govt - a govt that ONLY provides for the common defense and enforcement of contract laws and protection against crimes of violence and property theft. NOT crony-capitalism that takes command over the resources of a nation's klepotcratic govt by the .01% richest and their sycophantic bottom feeder lawyers, lobbyists, corrupt politicians and other enablers.PKKA , 3 hours ago
That was sure a lot of words, needlessly making something simple difficult. Here's what it all boils down to:
- - Who do you want setting prices? The market or a central planner?
- - What percent of the economy do you want the government to own or control?
- - What percent of your annual income do you want the government to take? Some small amount to be used for valid purposes, the rest to be pissed away against your better interests?Phillyguy , 4 hours ago
Protests and Maidan open up fabulous opportunities for protest leaders. Chocolate oligarch Poroshenko became president. The little-known leader of the party faction in the parliament, Yatsenyuk, became prime minister.
You know that on the project of an epic wall between Ukraine and Russia, Yatsenyuk stole $ 1 billion but did not build a wall. A moron with a certificate from a psycho hospital Andrei Parubiy became the speaker of parliament. You did not know that Parubiy had a certificate of moronity from a psycho hospital? Now you know. Boxer Vitali Klitschko became mayor of Kiev. Vitaly pronounces the words in syllables and wrinkles his forehead for a long time before expressing a thought. You can even physically hear the creak of gears as they spin and creak in Klitschko's head. Do you know what rabble passed in the Ukrainian parliament? Bandits, crooks, nazis, morons, thieves and idiots! So the protests open up fabulous career opportunities and enrichment!play_arrowVigilante , 4 hours ago
The American public has a front row seat, watching US economic decline. This process has been ongoing since the mid 1970's, as corporate profits slumped. In response the ruling elite enacted a series of Neo-liberal economic policies- multiple tax cuts for the wealthy, attacks on the poor and labor, job outsourcing, financial de-regulation, lack of spending on public and private infrastructure and spending $ trillions of taxpayer money on the Pentagon and strategic debacles in Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In total, these policies have been a disaster for the average American family.
The ruling elite are well aware of American economic decline, accelerated by the Coronavirus pandemic. Fascism comes to the fore when capitalism breaks down, and under extreme conditions, the ruling elite use fascism as an ideological rationale to harness state power- Legislature and police, to maintain class structure and wealth distribution. Western capitalism is incapable of reversing its economic decline and as a result, we are seeing fascism reemerging in the US, EU and Brazil. Donald Trump is the face of American fascism. Michael Parenti provides an excellent historical analysis of fascism. See: Michael Parenti- Functions of Fascism (Real History) 1 of 4 Jan 27, 2008; Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Bc4KJx2Aobshirley1968 , 4 hours ago
How come 'fascist' Trump is being attacked 24/7 by the Deep State though?
They should be on his side if your assertions are correct
Fascism resides mostly on the Left end of the spectrum...and 'Woke' capital is throwing its lot with the 'progressives' these daysHomeOfTheHypocrite , 3 hours ago
It's your perception he is being attacked. Dude, wake up.
The best the deep state has to run against Trump is Joe Biden? They are that stupid? They are that weak? If they are that stupid and weak, how can they be a conceivable, real threat.
You are being played. You imagine there are good guys that you can trust......and that is why you are being played.CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago
The ruling class is currently divided between those who are ready to prepare fascism and those who want to continue on with neoliberalism. Trump represents one faction of the ruling class. His political opponents in the Deep State represent another. None of them have any genuine concern for the fate of the American worker. Trump, if judged by his actions and not his words, is nothing but a charlatan who mouths populist phrases while appointing billionaire aristocrats to political positions and lavishing investment bankers with trillions of tax dollars.HomeOfTheHypocrite , 2 hours ago
This is the problem with both sides cult followers: the insanity behind the idea that these elite somehow have their hands tied behind their backs as they ALL move is toward fascism.
The 2 party system is a ONE party right wing fascist one. Trump is merely a figure head. People listen to what a politician says and NOT what he does behind their backs.
Trump is 1000% Zionazi just like the rest of themJedclampetisdead , 5 hours ago
"basically it looks alot like the age old battle between fascism and communism"
Perhaps on the streets, but not within the ruling class. The ruling class, including the Democrats, are utterly opposed to communism or socialism. Every Democratic congressperson with maybe one exception stood and applauded Trump's anti-socialist rants during his State of the Union addresses. Nancy Pelosi: "We're capitalist and that's just the way it is." Elizabeth Warren (supposedly a radical): "I'm capitalist to my bones."
"Let's say for example these protesters managed to organize well enough to stage a coup d'etat and take over - what next ?"
There's little chance of that. They are completely disorganized and lack any sort of political program. But, if you're giving me the task of developing a political program for them, I'll try to offer some suggestions that could be accomplished without a Pinochet or Stalin-style bloodletting.
1. Busting up the monopolies and cartels
2. Raising taxes on the rich
3. A government jobs program to combat unemployment
4. A massive curtailment of the military budget
5. A massive curtailment of the policing and prison budget
6. Free government healthcare (without banning private-sector healthcare)
The first three of these political tasks were accomplished in the US in the 1930s without the need for "black ops, gulags, secret police, and all the rest of it." Major policy changes have not always required mass repression. But they do require a serious enough political party to disassociate itself entirely from the ruling class Democrats and Republicans. During the 30s there was a significant rise in various populist and socialist parties. Much of FDR's policies and statements were a response to the threat they posed to established power. There is a famous quote where he talks about having to "throw a few of these [millionaires] to the wolves" in order to save America from the crackpot ideas of the "communists" and "Huey Longians."
I completely share your concern related to the use of repression to implement social and economic policies. Neither the fascists nor the communists have a thing to offer a free people so long as they rely on tyranny to enforce their program. Above all democracy and the natural rights of individuals must be preserved.new game , 5 hours ago
If this country has any chance, we have to execute the Zionist bankers and their minions
What is and will be: Corporate Fascism.
I defy anyone to explain other wise.
Go to the World Economic Forum web page and meet your masters.
Billionaires shaping YOUR future with their fortunes from corporations.
Their wealth was had by joint ventures with bought and paid for politicians and lobbyist
crafted legislation to maximize their wealth. This fakdemic absolutely consolidates more wealth
to fewer corporations by design. Serf and kings/queens. The club personified by immense wealth disparity.
In a continuing process, the social scoring via digital systems will limit freedoms to state approved corporate diktats
that clamp like a boot to the neck. **** here, 6 tissue sections and recycled bug **** for food.
brave new gatsy world right now with the roll out out of 3 pronged vaccine controlling your brains emotions.
It is all so obvious to anyone with an ability to see two steps into the future. navigate the future accordingly.
They are in control, the first denial that must be removed to see clearly the next step. sad but true.
simple **** maynard...
May 25, 2020 | www.motherjones.com
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The truth is that today's " way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be nearly invisible to the public. With little to show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals. America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the children among them."Just as the coronavirus exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11 Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the intervening decades, for individual yet strikingly similar reasons, we ultimately chose paths of dissent. Since then, we've penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars' prospects , questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier.
The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018 alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the 15-20 daily veteran suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is unique, but studies demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' " signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are real folks who left behind real loved ones.
Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is die with them.
The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor at antiwar.com . He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at West Point. He is the author of a memoir of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge .
May 29, 2020 | www.zerohedge.comAuthored by Jeff Deist via The Mises Institute,
In the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its media accomplices waged a relentless propaganda campaign to win political support for what turned out to be one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history.
Nearly two decades later, with perhaps a million dead Iraqis and thousands of dead American soldiers, we are still paying for that mistake.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were key players behind the propaganda -- which we can define as purposeful use of information and misinformation to manipulate public opinion in favor of state action. Iraq and its president Saddam Hussein were the ostensible focus, but their greater goal was to make the case for a broader and open-ended "War on Terror."
So they created a narrative using a mélange of half-truths, faintly plausible fabrications, and outright lies:
- Iraq and the nefarious Saddam Hussein were "behind," i.e., backing, the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9-11 attacks on the US;
- Hussein and his government were stockpiling yellowcake uranium in an effort to develop nuclear capability;
- Hussein was connected with al-Qaeda
- Iran was lurking in the background as a state sponsor of terrorism, coordinating and facilitating attacks against the US in coordination with Hamas;
- Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and other terror groups were working against the US across the Middle East in some kind of murky but coordinated effort;
- We have to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here";
- The Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators.
And so forth.
But the propaganda "worked" in the most meaningful sense: Congress voted nearly 3–1 in favor of military action against Iraq, and Gallup showed 72 percent of Americans supporting the invasion as it commenced in 2003. Media outlets across the spectrum such as the Washington Post cheered the war . National Review dutifully did its part, labeling Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, and other outspoken opponents of the invasion as "unpatriotic conservatives."
Tragically, the American people never placed the burden of proof squarely with the war cheerleaders to justify their absolutely crazed effort to remake the Middle East. In hindsight, this is obvious, but at the time propaganda did its job. Disinformation is part and parcel of the fog of war.
What will hindsight make clear about our reaction to COVID-19 propaganda? Will we regret shutting down the economy as much as we ought to regret invading Iraq?
The cast of characters is different, of course: Trump, desperately seeking "wartime president" status; Dr. Anthony Fauci; epidemiologist Neil Ferguson; state governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom; and a host of media acolytes just itching to force a new normal down our throats. Like the Iraq War architects, they use COVID-19 as justification to advance a preexisting agenda, namely, greater state control over our lives and our economy. Yet because too many Americans remain stubbornly attached to the old normal, a propaganda campaign is required.
So we are faced with a blizzard of new "facts" almost every day, most of which turn out to be only mildly true, extremely dubious, or plainly false:
- The virus aerosolizes and floats around, so we all need to be six feet apart (But why not twenty feet? Why not one mile?);
- The virus lives on surfaces everywhere, for days;
- Asymptomatic people can spread it unknowingly;
- Antibodies may or may not develop naturally;
- People may become infected more than once;
- Young healthy people are at great risk not only themselves, but also pose a risk to their elderly family members;
- Thin, permeable paper masks somehow prevent microscopic viral spores from being inhaled or exhaled toward others;
- People are safer inside;
- The rate of new infected "cases" in the first few weeks of the virus reaching America would continue or even grow exponentially;
- Social distancing and quarantines do indeed "save" lives;
- Testing is key (But what if an individual visits a crowded grocery an hour after testing negative?);
- A second wave of infections is nigh; and
- Our personal and work lives cannot continue without a vaccine, which, by the way, may be two years away.
Again, much of this is not true and not even intended to be true -- but rather to influence public behavior and opinions. And again, the overwhelming burden of proof should lie squarely with those advocating a lockdown of society, who would risk a modern Great Depression in response to a simple virus.
How much damage will the lockdown cause? Economics aside, the sheer toll of this self-inflicted wound will be a matter for historians to document. That toll includes all the things Americans would have done without the shutdown in their personal and professional lives, representing a diminution of life itself. Can that be measured, or distilled into numerical terms? Probably not, but this group of researchers and academics argues that we have already suffered more than one million "lost years of life" due to the ravages of unemployment, missed healthcare, and general malaise.
By the same token, how do we measure the blood and treasure lost in Iraq? How much PTSD will soldiers suffer? How many billions of dollars in future VA medical care will be required? How many children will grow up without fathers? And how many millions of lives are forever shattered in that cobbled-together political artifice in the Middle East?
Propaganda kills, but it also works. Politicians of all stripes will benefit from the coronavirus; the American people will suffer. Perversely, one of the worst COVID propagandists -- the aforementioned Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York -- yesterday rang the bell as the New York Stock Exchange reopened to floor trading. He now admits that the models were wrong and that his lockdown did nothing to prevent the Empire State from suffering the highest per capita deaths from COVID. Like the architects of the Iraq War, he belongs on a criminal docket. But thanks to propaganda, he is hailed as presidential.
May 29, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org
The other day an aerospace industry analyst asked me whether I thought the defense budget would start to go down, courtesy of the huge cost of dealing with the pandemic and the massive deficits the nation faces. I said it was unlikely and he agreed.
This is not the conventional wisdom in DC. Some national security analysts and advocates for higher defense budgets have warned that the defense budget is now under siege . Critics of the Pentagon and its spending are equally convinced that the pandemic opens the door to necessary, deep, sensible cuts in defense in order to fund the mountain of debt and take care of pressing needs for income, employment, health care, global warming, and other major threats to the well-being of Americans.
Whatever the nation's strategy, critics argue, the pandemic has changed the face of the threat to America. COVID-19 is an invisible, lethal threat to human security, a viral neutron bomb that spares buildings but kills their occupants.
Congress has appropriated more than 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, so far, to cope with this threat. Additional funds for the military, ironically, have become a "rounding error" in this spending -- little more than $10 billion of the more than $4 trillion appropriated to date. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper warned about the likelihood of defense cuts and wanted more funds for the Pentagon, but Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee said there was no way defense would get more funds through the pandemic bills.
So it looks bad for defense, and good for the advocates of cuts. But not so fast. Yes, it is true; history shows that defense budgets do decline. It happens, predictably, when we get out of a war – World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. Even when we left Iraq in 2011, the budget went down.
There is a secret ingredient in defense budget reductions: they seem to happen, as well, when the politics of deficit reduction appear. Defense also declined after Korea because a fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was in office, with five virtual stars on his shoulders, making it possible to put a lid on the budgetary appetites of the services.
In fact, in 1985, well before the end of the Cold War, Congress, focused on the deficit, passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was then was reinforced in the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act that set hard spending limits on domestic and defense spending. It had to cover both parts of discretionary spending or Congress could not agree. It was 17 years before the defense budget began to rise .
Put the end of war together with a dollop of deficit reduction and defense budgets will go down. They become the caboose, rather than the engine, of the budgetary train. But beware of what you ask for. The price of constraints on defense has been constraints on domestic spending, as the nation has learned over the past three decades. In fact, the Budget Control Act of 2011 constrained domestic spending, while allowing defense to escape almost unscathed, thanks to war supplementals.
When attention shifts to debates over priorities and deficits, it opens the door to a real discussion about defense. But they do not ensure cuts. While the military services may not see their appetite for real growth of 3-5 percent fulfilled, it is unlikely to decline very much.
There is a floor under the defense budget. But you need to change the level of analysis to see it and look at who actually makes defense budget decisions and why they make the decisions they do. It's about something I called the "Iron Triangle."
We all like to think that strategy drives defense budgets. For the most part, however, defense decisions are made inside a political system involving constant, relatively closed interaction between the military services, the Congress, and the community and industry beneficiaries of defense spending.
In outline, budget planners in the military services start with last year's budget and graft on new funds, rarely giving up a program, a mission, or part of the force. This dynamic points the budgets upwards over time. Secretaries and under-secretaries work to add preferences and projects, like national missile defense, to the services' budget plans. On top of that, presidents have made promises, adding such things as bomber funds (Reagan) and space forces (Trump) the services do not want.
Then there is the second leg of the triangle: Congress. For all their efforts to cut Pentagon waste, progressive members do not drive defense decisions in the Congress. The defense authorizers and appropriators do. The associated committees are dominated by defense spending advocates, deeply interested in the outcomes, encouraged by industry campaign contributions and community lobbying. These outside interests are the third leg of the triangle. Contracts and community-based impacts give them a deep stake in the outcomes.
This system is not a conspiracy; it is a visible part of American politics, similar in shape to the players in farm price supports or health care policy. But it is a system that operates somewhat separately from and parallel to the politics of deficit reduction and has a major impact on the content and levels of the defense budget. And its work bakes a kind of sclerosis into efforts to have a broader debate over spending priorities.
The politics of the Iron Triangle will set limits on the defense budget debate making deep cuts unlikely. So what might be the options to end-run this system? Politics, of course. If the advocates of deeper defense reductions want to change America's spending and budgeting priorities, they will need to join forces with advocates of a "new, new deal" in America -- one that would put priority on the national health system, infrastructure investment, climate change, immigration, and educational reform. Only a very large, very deep coalition has a chance of overcoming the inertia imposed by the Iron Triangle.
And that coalition will need to focus on Joe Biden. The president is the key actor here, particularly at the start of an administration. As Bill Clinton learned, the first months are critical to changing overall budget priorities, before the departments, including Defense, can begin the Iron Triangle dance.
Even then, major cuts in defense budgets are an uphill fight. The opening for a broader priorities debate has been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome depends significantly on bringing this kind of focus to actions over the next seven months.
May 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Norogene , May 29 2020 23:02 utc | 115
lysias @ 109
... Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please excuse the length of this quote):A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian convictions to the pursuit of expansive politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships they introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, con- sumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget. Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose fiscal discipline and accountability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous type of corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind of ruthless power relations it fosters in domestic politics. As many observers have noted, politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity as the hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political party; the efforts to consolidate executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. In the eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the advancement of Athenian hegemony de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall of Athens was attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for ill-conceived adventures. As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by pro\posing ever wilder schemes of conquest.
In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites, abetted by the Spartans, succeeded in temporarily abolishing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
...and while I am at it: lysias @ 106
Let's deconstruct what you've said. Even if he resisted arrest (by what degree was he resisting?) that is not cause for applying deadly force on someone. Clearly he was restrained and was going no where. Furthermore, the application of restraint should be one that ought not induce death in someone with a previous health condition. By your rationale, you have no business of walking the streets if you are not an able-bodied person and that death by restraint by a police officer is excusable if you happen to be in bad health.
Although you don't explicitly say it, somehow it feels like you are saying that he had it coming to him when you write "Floyd had a lengthy criminal record." Does that mean just because he had a lengthy record he deserved to be roughed up like that? This sounds like victim blaming, which is something commonly done in this country to continue to oppress people who have no power.
May 30, 2020 | mobile.twitter.com
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland THREAD: I'm angry. Beyond angry. I beg every American who cares about the truth and this country to read the transcript--THE TRANSCRIPT--of @GenFlynn calls with the Russian ambassador. Some points follow, but let me start with this out-take. /1 pic.twitter.com/rPMnFYDb60 2:34 PM - 29 May 2020 Twitter by: Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 2/ Here is the link to the transcript. grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 2/ Here is the link to the transcript. grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/ View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 3/ That out-take tells you everything you need to know about why Obama had January 5 meeting to discuss withholding information with the Trump transition team and administration. Can't you just picture petty little Barack Obama "how dare General Flynn say I cannot "box" them in.
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 3/ That out-take tells you everything you need to know about why Obama had January 5 meeting to discuss withholding information with the Trump transition team and administration. Can't you just picture petty little Barack Obama "how dare General Flynn say I cannot "box" them in. View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 4/ And for all those who scream about diplomacy, my God, read the damn transcript. We want men like General Flynn leading diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/ksPQoePrUO
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 4/ And for all those who scream about diplomacy, my God, read the damn transcript. We want men like General Flynn leading diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/ksPQoePrUO View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 5/ And not just diplomacy but the fight against the common enemy--terrorists. pic.twitter.com/oDrv07EeP2
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 5/ And not just diplomacy but the fight against the common enemy--terrorists. pic.twitter.com/oDrv07EeP2 View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 6/ Read the --- damn transcript! General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration. The Obama administration interfered with the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/XVT4D1f1Ay
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 6/ Read the --- damn transcript! General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration. The Obama administration interfered with the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/XVT4D1f1Ay View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 7/ Even Russia saw that! pic.twitter.com/iie01PUy8t
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 7/ Even Russia saw that! pic.twitter.com/iie01PUy8t View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 8/ The focus was on following Trump's inauguration. pic.twitter.com/94Kg69TRte
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 8/ The focus was on following Trump's inauguration. pic.twitter.com/94Kg69TRte View conversation ·
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @JoeBiden 9/9 This entire 3-year nightmare for General Flynn all arose because a petty little man named Barack Obama demanded revenge. And @JoeBiden was right by his side. END
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
5h Replying to @JoeBiden 9/9 This entire 3-year nightmare for General Flynn all arose because a petty little man named Barack Obama demanded revenge. And @JoeBiden was right by his side. END View conversation ·
Harmless Patsy @Harmless_Patsy
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland @Cernovich @GenFlynn I'm shocked at how much the fake news is lying about the transcripts by "summarizing" them when what they're saying directly contradicts what the transcripts say. This is how these fake news people work. They tell you what the document says and hope you don't read it.
Harmless Patsy @Harmless_Patsy
5h Replying to @ProfMJCleveland @Cernovich @GenFlynn I'm shocked at how much the fake news is lying about the transcripts by "summarizing" them when what they're saying directly contradicts what the transcripts say. This is how these fake news people work. They tell you what the document says and hope you don't read it. View conversation ·
Theo West @theodwest
5h Replying to @Harmless_Patsy @ProfMJCleveland and 2 others That's why I don't watch them. I follow real journalists, lawyers and investigators who tweet the real documents and substantiate what they say.
Theo West @theodwest
5h Replying to @Harmless_Patsy @ProfMJCleveland and 2 others That's why I don't watch them. I follow real journalists, lawyers and investigators who tweet the real documents and substantiate what they say. View conversation ·
May 29, 2020 | www.zerohedge.comSen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released the transcripts between then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kisliak, which revealed that Flynn asked Russia to take "reciprocal" against sanctions levied by the Obama administration over interference in the 2016 US election.
" I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate tit-for-tat," Flynn told Kisyak.
12/23/16 - Flynn relays his goals about the Russia/US relationship.
Flynn: "We will not achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical Islamist crowd."
It was never about collusion. pic.twitter.com/xN3twZYa6H-- Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 29, 2020
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, Former FBI agent Peter Strzok used that conversation as a basis to continue his investigation into whether Flynn was a potential Russian agent, according to recently unsealed court documents. The agency used the call as leverage to try to get the retired general to admit to a violation of the Logan Act - an obscure old law nearly a quarter-century old which prohibits private citizens from interfering in diplomacy (which, as it turns out, is standard practice among members of transitioning administrations).
FBI agent Joe Pientka, who interviewed Flynn with agent Strzok, wrote in his interview notes that he did not believe Flynn was lying to them during the interview - while other recently unsealed notes revealed that the FBI considered a perjury trap against Flynn to " get him fired ."
If there was a preexisting improper relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia, @GenFlynn would never have needed an official call with Kislyak to prevent the disaster the Obama admin was creating.
It's common sense if you're an honest broker.-- John 'Murder Hornet' Cardillo (@johncardillo) May 29, 2020
'Scandal beyond Measure': @TomFitton says transcripts of the Flynn – Kislyak calls further prove General Flynn's innocence and the deep state's deception. #AmericaFirst #MAGA #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/99qggR1uDp-- Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) May 29, 2020
After the FBI's malfeasance came to light, the DOJ moved to drop the case against Flynn - which US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has refused to do - instead asking a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, to provide legal arguments as to whether Sullivan should hold Flynn in criminal contempt for pleading guilty to FBI agents - which he now says he did not do.
Following the release of the transcripts , Sen. Grassley said in a statement: "Lt. General Flynn, his legal team, the judge and the American people can now see with their own eyes – for the first time – that all of the innuendo about Lt. General Flynn this whole time was totally bunk. There was nothing improper about his call, and the FBI knew it. "
The transcripts show that Flynn was acting in his country's best interests, and his only crime was bruising the fragile ego of the Obama team and their pathetic foreign policy https://t.co/P3nuifreUI-- Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) May 29, 2020
Earlier Friday, DNI John Ratcliffe declassified the transcripts and released them to Congress. See below:
May 30, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
likbez , May 29, 2020 11:29 pm
The transcript of Flynn call to Ambassador Kislyak was declassified and released.
One plausible hypothesis is that Obama administration decided to revenge Flynn maneuver to foil Obama last move -- the expulsion of Russian diplomats, which stated neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA. He explicitly asked Russians not to retaliate and I would understand why Obama did not like this move.
In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly cooped by neocons, but still
The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot water.
May 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
A User , May 30 2020 3:47 utc | 160re Norogene | May 30 2020 3:09 utc | 155
"But, of course, you need to protect your country which means maintaining a defense force. " Yet I cannot think of a single instance of a conflict amerika has gotten into that wasn't a case of amerika kicking off the action with some particularly egregious act.
eg On the instances I have raised this with amerikans, many have told me they consider Pearl Harbour to be an instance of amerika being the innocent party, they had no idea that FDR had instigated a blockade of Japan long before which was starving Japanese people or that Pearl Harbour wasn't amerikan soil, it was an illegally occupied nation and the Japanese attack had been careful to only bomb and strafe the occupying force.
No nation needs a defense force if the true will of the citizens of a country was what steered that nation, since as you said, most humans the world over prefer to live and let live.
When I worked as a public servant it took me about 5 seconds to suss that those bureaucrats promoting change didn't have a real interest in change apart from the opportunity for promotion change can promote.
This is equally true of war, the arseholes arguing for getting into conflicts do so only for the opportunities for personal benefit conflicts create. Since no war has ever advantaged the masses it is safe to say left up to the people, no wars would always be their first preference.
May 29, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the Pentagon continues to demand the lion's share of the U.S. budget. It wants another $705 billion for 2021, after increasing its budget by 20 percent between 2016 and 2020.
This appalling waste of government resources has already caused long-term damage to the economic competitiveness of the United States. But it's all the money the Pentagon is spending on "deterring China" that might prove more devastating in the short term.
The U.S. Navy announced this month that it was sending its entire forward-deployed sub fleet on "contingency response operations" as a warning to China. Last month, the U.S. Navy Expeditionary Strike Group sailed into the South China Sea to support Malaysia's oil exploration in an area that China claims. Aside from the reality that oil exploration makes no economic sense at a time of record low oil prices, the United States should be helping the countries bordering the South China Sea come to a fair resolution of their disputes, not throwing more armaments at the problem.
There's also heightened risk of confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and even in outer space . A huge portion of the Pentagon's budget goes toward preparing for war with China -- and, frankly, provoking war as well.
What does this all have to do with the Great Disentanglement?
The close economic ties between the United States and China have always represented a significant constraint on military confrontation. Surely the two countries would not risk grievous economic harm by coming to blows. Economic cooperation also provides multiple channels for resolving conflicts and communicating discontent. The United States and Soviet Union never had that kind of buffer.
If the Great Disentanglement goes forward, however, then the two countries have less to lose economically in a military confrontation. Trading partners, of course, sometimes go to war with one another. But as the data demonstrates , more trade generally translates into less war.
There are lots and lots of problems in the U.S.-China economic relationship. But they pale in comparison to World War III.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus , where this article originally appeared.
May 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Richard Steven Hack , May 27 2020 23:54 utc | 38Trump: I Can and Will Start Wars Whenever I Please
https://tinyurl.com/yc6j4sqyTrump claims that the resolution was "based on misunderstandings of facts and law." The only allegedly incorrect fact he mentions is the existence of open hostilities between the United States and Iran, but that's merely a reflection of the time when the measure was drafted. Besides, the two countries are still not exactly at peace with each other, thanks in part to the president.
Trump is the one who is clearly mistaken regarding the law. He insists, as he did in January, that the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq was sufficient justification for killing Soleimani, but as the American Conservative's Daniel Larison opined, "There is no honest reading of that resolution that supports this interpretation." In addition, he claims that he derives his war-making power from Article II of the Constitution, yet that article specifically states that "the president shall be commander in chief of the [armed forces] when called into the actual service of the United States." (Emphasis added.) And who gets to call them into service? According to Article I, Congress does, by declaring war.
Trump doubles down on this unsupportable assertion in his next paragraph:
The resolution implies that the President's constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack. That is incorrect. We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries' next moves and take swift and decisive action in response. That's what I did!
This is on a par with Trump's declaration over the states re-opening: he declared: "When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be."
This lunatic thinks he's Caesar!
Anyone who thinks he won't start a new war - somewhere - is delusional. He may not start one *before* the election, but if he wins, what about *after*? And i wouldn't even be sure about "before". He's dumb enough to think - or be convinced by his neocon advisers - that he could get a "war President" boost in the polls if he starts one before the election. After all, the one time he got a boost in the polls was when he attacked Syria over the bogus "chemical weapons" incidents. So I wouldn't rule anything out.
May 25, 2020 | www.commondreams.orgby Los Angeles Times US Public Remain the Tacit Accomplice in America's Dead End Wars Honor the fallen, but not every war they were sent to fight by Andrew Bacevich
19 Comments A U.S. soldier fires an anti-tank rocket during a live-fire exercise in Zabul province, Afghanistan, in July 2010. (Photo: U.S. Army /flickr/cc) Not least among the victims claimed by the coronavirus pandemic was a poetry recital that was to have occurred in March at a theater in downtown Boston.
I had been invited to read aloud a poem, and I chose "On a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines," written in 1899 by William Vaughn Moody (1869-1910). You are unlikely to have heard of the poet or his composition. Great literature, it is not. Yet its message is memorable.
The subject of Moody's poem is death, a matter today much on all our minds. It recounts the coming home of a nameless American soldier, killed in the conflict commonly but misleadingly known as the Philippine Insurrection.
In 1898, U.S. troops landed in Manila to oust the Spanish overlords who had ruled the Philippines for more than three centuries. They accomplished this mission with the dispatch that a later generation of U.S. forces demonstrated in ousting regimes in Kabul and Baghdad. Yet as was the case with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of our own day, real victory proved elusive.
Back in Washington, President McKinley decided that having liberated the Philippines, the United States would now keep them. The entire archipelago of several thousand islands was to become an American colony.
McKinley's decision met with immediate disfavor among Filipinos. To oust the foreign occupiers, they mounted an armed resistance. A vicious conflict ensued, one that ultimately took the lives of 4,200 American soldiers and at least 200,000 Filipinos. In the end, however, the United States prevailed.
Denying Filipino independence was the cause for which the subject of Moody's poem died.
Long since forgotten by Americans, the war to pacify the Philippines generated in its day great controversy. Moody's poem is an artifact of that controversy. In it, he chastises those who perform the rituals of honoring the fallen while refusing to acknowledge the dubious nature of the cause for which they fought. "Toll! Let the great bells toll," he writes,
Till the clashing air is dim,
Did we wrong this parted soul?
We will make it up to him.
Toll! Let him never guess
What work we sent him to.
Laurel, laurel, yes.
He did what we bade him do.
Praise, and never a whispered hint
but the fight he fought was good;
In actuality, the fight was anything but good. It was ill-advised and resulted in great evil. "On a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines" expresses a demand for reckoning with that evil. Americans of Moody's generation rejected that demand, just as Americans today balk at reckoning with the consequences of our own ill-advised wars.
Yet the imperative persists. "O banners, banners here," Moody concludes,
That he doubt not nor misgive!
That he heed not from the tomb
The evil days draw near
When the nation robed in gloom
With its faithless past shall strive.
Let him never dream that his bullet's scream
went wide of its island mark,
Home to the heart of his darling land
where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.
At the end of the 19th century, the United States stumbled and sinned in the dark by waging a misbegotten campaign to advance nakedly imperial ambitions. At the beginning of the 21st century, new wars became the basis of comparable sin. The war of Moody's time and the wars of our own have almost nothing in common except this: In each instance, through their passivity disguised as patriotism, the American people became tacitly complicit in wrongdoing committed in their name.
It is no doubt too glib by half to claim that today, besieged by a virus, we are reaping the consequences caused by our refusal to reckon with past sins. Yet it is not too glib to argue that the need for such a reckoning remains. Have we wronged the departed souls of those who died -- indeed, are still dying -- in Afghanistan and Iraq? The question cries out for an answer. In our cacophonous age, it just might be that we will find that answer in poetry.
Andrew Bacevich Andrew J. Bacevich , a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , which has just been published by Random House. He is also editor of the book, The Short American Century (Harvard Univ. Press) , and author of several others, including: Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) ; Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War , The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War , The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) , and The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II . © 2019 Los Angeles Times
May 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , May 26 2020 17:41 utc | 1The New York Times has a 4,000 words long piece about the war on Afghanistan. It tries to explain why the Taliban won the war.
How the Taliban Outlasted a Superpower: Tenacity and Carnage
It is also a remarkable attempt to ignore the factual history:[The Taliban] have outlasted a superpower through nearly 19 years of grinding war. And dozens of interviews with Taliban officials and fighters in three countries, as well as with Afghan and Western officials, illuminated the melding of old and new approaches and generations that helped them do it.
After 2001, the Taliban reorganized as a decentralized network of fighters and low-level commanders empowered to recruit and find resources locally while the senior leadership remained sheltered in neighboring Pakistan.
That is simply wrong. Between the end of 2001 and 2007 there were no Taliban. The movement had dissolved.
The author later acknowledges that there were no Taliban activity throughout those years. But the narrative is again skewed:Many Taliban commanders interviewed for this article said that in the initial months after the invasion, they could scarcely even dream of a day they might be able to fight off the U.S. military. But that changed once their leadership regrouped in safe havens provided by Pakistan's military -- even as the Pakistanis were receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid.
From that safety, the Taliban planned a longer war of attrition against U.S. and NATO troops. Starting with more serious territorial assaults in 2007, the insurgents revived and refined an old blueprint the United States had funded against the Soviets in the same mountains and terrain -- but now it was deployed against the American military.
Even before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan the Taliban had recognized that they lacked the capability to run a country. They had managed to make Afghanistan somewhat secure. The warlords who had fought each other after the Soviet draw down were suppressed and the streets were again safe. But there was no development, no real education or health system and no money to create them.
When the U.S. invaded the Taliban dispersed. On December 5 2001 Taliban leader Mullah Omar resigned and went into hiding within Afghanistan. For one day the Taliban defense minister Mullah Obaidullah became the new leader. From the The Secret Life of Mullah Omar by Bette Dam:The next day, Mullah Obaidullah drove up north to Kandahar's Shah Wali Kot district to meet with Karzai and his supporters. In what has become known as the "Shah Wali Kot Agreement", Mullah Obaidullah and the Taliban agreed to lay down their arms and retire to their homes or join the government. The movement effectively disbanded itself. Karzai agreed, and in a media appearance the next day, he announced that while al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the enemies of Afghanistan, the Taliban were sons of the soil and would effectively receive amnesty. For the moment, the war was over.
The Taliban fighters went back to their home villages and families. Most stayed in Afghanistan. Some of the leaders and elder members went back to the tribal regions of Pakistan where their families had been living as refugees since the Soviet invasion in 1979.
The Taliban did not plan a longer war of attrition - at least not between 2001 and 2006. The movement had simply ended to exist.
The big question is then why it came back but the New York Times has little to say about that:From the start, the insurgents seized on the corruption and abuses of the Afghan government put in place by the United States, and cast themselves as arbiters of justice and Afghan tradition -- a powerful part of their continued appeal with many rural Afghans in particular. With the United States mostly distracted with the war in Iraq, the insurgency widened its ambitions and territory.
No, the 'corruption and abuses of the Afghan government' were not the reason the Taliban were reestablished. It were the abuses of the U.S. occupation that recreated them. The publicly announced amnesty Karzai and Mullah Obaidullah had agreed upon, was ignored by the U.S. commanders and politicians.
The CIA captured random Afghans as 'Taliban' and brutally tortured them - some to death. U.S. Special Forces randomly raided private homes and bombed whole villages to rubble. The brutal warlords, which the Taliban had suppressed, were put back into power. When they wanted to grab a piece of land they told their U.S. handlers that the owner was a 'Taliban'. The U.S. troops would then removed that person one way or the other. The behavior of the occupiers was an affront to every Afghan.
By 2007 Mullah Omar and his helper Jabbar Omari were hiding in Siuray, a district around twenty miles southeast of Qalat. A large U.S. base was nearby. Bette Dam writes of the people's mood:As the population turned against the government due to its corruption and American atrocities, they began to offer food and clothing to the house-hold for Jabbar Omari and his mysterious friend.
It was the absurd stupidity and brutality with which the U.S. occupied the country that gave Afghans the motive to again fight against an occupier or at least to support such a fight.
At the same time the Pakistani military had come to fear a permanent U.S. presence in its backyard. It connected the retired Taliban elders with its sponsors in the Gulf region and organized the logistics for a new insurgency. The Taliban movement was reestablished with new leadership but under the old name.
The old tribal command networks where again activates and the ranks were filled with newly disgruntled Afghans. From that point on it was only a question of time until the U.S. would have to leave just like the Soviets and Brits had to do before them.
By December 2001 the war against the Taliban had ended. During the following five years the U.S. fought against an imaginary enemy that no longer existed. It was this war on the wider population that by 2007 created a new insurgency that adopted the old name.
A piece that claims to explain why the Taliban have won the war but ignores the crucial period between 2001 and 2007 misses the most important point that made the Taliban victory possible.
The will of the Afghan people to liberate their country from a foreign occupation. Thanks b for doing a good job in restating the record. IMO, the Outlaw US Empire followed the same MO as it did in Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines well before them all, all of which were based on the White Supremacist Settler credo underlying the culture of the US military that was just called out--again-- in this very powerful NY Times Editorial , and Iraq was no different either. The contrast between the Editorial Board and its Newsroom writers is quite stark when their products are compared--one lies about recent history while the other attempts to educate more fully about the very sordid past of the most revered federal government institution.
Don Bacon , May 26 2020 18:03 utc | 3LuBa , May 26 2020 19:56 utc | 6
Bombing civilians is recruiting more enemies. Also, in this mistaken adventure the US has been stupidly allied with and funding the neighboring country (Pakistan) which is supporting the people (Taliban) who are killing Americans.
General McChrystal's Report to President Obama, Aug 30, 2009:
'Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. . .and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI [Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence ]. . . .Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India." . . .Simply put, Pakistan didn't want to be in an Indian sandwich with its mortal enemy on two sides.
President Obama was then in the process of more than tripling the US military strength in Afghanistan, sending 70,000 more troops to that graveyard of empires (UK, Russia). Three months later, December 1, 2009 at West Point, Obama gave a rah-rah speech to cadets including: . . ."Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan."This article wants on purpose link taliban to Pakistan..there is no connection between Talibans and yanks backed Pakistani militias..and there is no pakistani talibans..they want to hide the truth confusing the people but the truth is that the violent and illegal occupation of Afghanistan created a strong resistance in an already strong population.The puppet-method didn't work there and this article is the last (I hope) attempt to give a false narrative of the events.18 years of war for nothing..what the empire has gained from this war?nothing.arby , May 26 2020 20:03 utc | 7LuBa--Jen , May 26 2020 20:18 utc | 8
"what the empire has gained from this war?nothing"
Hmmm, not sure about that. First of all it has kept Russia out of Afghanistan, and somewhere I read that Afghanistan is very central to controlling Eurasia.
I'm pretty sure that attacking Afghanistan was planned before 911 as well, so there must be some reason for that.The writer of that NYT piece, Mujib Mashal, studied history (presumably the history of Afghanistan and western and southern Asia) at Columbia University - O'Bomber's alma mater, I believe - and in-between working as an NYT intern in Kabul and his current senior correspondent role, worked for a time with Al Jazeera in Doha. One wonders how much effort Mashal and other NYT writers with similar backgrounds put into reordering reality to fit whatever fairy-tale narratives they were taught at Columbia University.uncle tungsten , May 26 2020 21:02 utc | 10
The underlying aim in MM's hit-piece must surely be to set up Pakistan as a target for criticism. Some sort of narrative arc leading to removing Imran Khan as Prime Minister there can't be too far away.Michael Hastings was a real journalist. His demolition of McChrystal the goof US war criminal should be read again and again. Vale brave journalist.vato , May 26 2020 21:44 utc | 13Soviet invasion? The Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty signed in December 1978 permitted - inter alia - military assistance and advice to the Afghani government if requested. Saying the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan is like saying Russia invaded Syria.Sakineh Bagoom , May 26 2020 21:46 utc | 14Opium production is now seven-fold since the arrival of the empire. It is afflicting Afghanistan and neighboring countries with addiction all the while paying for CIA operations.cirsium , May 26 2020 22:01 utc | 15
Let's not forget the MOAB, we are told was detonated over -- caves?@LuBa, May 26bevin , May 26 2020 22:03 utc | 16
what the empire has gained from this war?nothing.
Millions of dollars earned off-the-books from drug trafficking plus enough product to carry out narco-aggression against Iran, Russia, China and the 'stans is nothing?Superb.Gerhard , May 26 2020 22:12 utc | 17
The relationship with Pakistan has two aspects : the borders between the countries, imposed by the British, make no sense, dividing the Pashtun people artificially. The second is that the US has long used Pakistan as a pawn in the region. This goes back to the foundation of the country in 1948 and malign US influence in Pakistan has been the major factor in the country's problems. It is a reminder that there are no known limits to the hypocrisy of the people running the USA that the links between the Taliban, nurtured under US sponsorship in Pakistan which was used as a secure base beyond Kabul's writ, and Pakistan are attributed to Pakistan's initiative.
Another matter which one supposes that the New York Times neglected to mention is that under US sponsorship since 2001 the Heroin industry, reduced almost to nothing by the Taliban government has ballooned into the proportions we have grown to expect where US influence is established. Besides the corpses of those bombed, tortured and shot to death by the imperialist armies there are millions of victims of the drug trades, ranging from those killed by death squads in the producing countries, and those in, for example Colombia and Honduras, victimised by narco governments to the millions of addicts around the world.
Part of the truth of Afghanistan is that the US and its allies have been protecting the criminal narcotics trade in order to employ its profits for their own evil purposes.Hello!karlof1 , May 26 2020 22:26 utc | 18
Please allow to add to b 's very good overview another subject: drug planting, producing and dealing in Afghanistan. The Taliban first were against drugs (religious reasons), but when they saw that the people were exhausted by the Americans and their corrupt Afghan friends, and had no more income, they allowed the farmers to plant opium poppy for the EXPORT. Soon they also realized the profits for themselves (to change into weapons). And so it happened that Afghanistan became a major producer for the world market. It's an open question (at least for me) how much international networks with connections to US-people and US-institutions (like CIA) are involved in this drug dealing business originating in Afghanistan.
arby | 7 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attacking Afghanistan was planned before 911 as well, so there must be some reason for that.
Interesting question (more see below)! A few days ago I made some research to a parallel problem: was "homeland security" also in the development before 9/11? Parallel to the war against Afghanistan another war was started: against the American people. Under the roof of 'Homeland Security' in the interior; parallel zu 'National Security' as a topic in foreign politics. Bush jun. appointed Tom Ridge within 28 days, did they have some plans before? I found some remarks in Edward LIPTON's book, Homeland Security Office (2002), indicating plannings as early as Dec. 2000 and Jan. 2001. Please also remember that there were anthrax mailings parallel to 9/11. Please remember that Homeland Security Act has some paragraphs about defense against bioweapon attacks and has some paragraphs about vaccine, too. Please remember that early plannings of homeland security had also controlling american people with the help of lockdowns. That trail was followed during the next years in 'hidden' further plannings as You may find them here:
And that all now will be further developed into future as outlined here:
Next interesting question: when did THEY begin to focus on the twin towers? WTC area was public property and administration. Very profitable. Then SIVLERSTEIN bought the WTC7 ground and started to built and rented it, among others, to CIA. And then THEY were looking just out of the window to see the twin towers. And then these very pofitable buildings were privatized - why? And they were insured. That privatization was a very dramatic poker which was won by SILVERSTEIN, too. Why? Some 'renovation' had to be done of course when SILVERSTEIN took over the property. I remember that companies included were overseen by one of the Bush sons (Jebb?), and so on ...
Back to the questions about planning of War against Afghanistan. There should be documents available (foreign policy planning & military planning) because the background primarily was (according to my estimation) geopolitical. But there is a greater framework within which the war against terrorism has to be seen. On the day after 9/11 a document was published for the first time which had been collected under Bush Sen. in the 1980s: 'Report of the Vice President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism'. It says that terrorism follows overpopulation in undeveloped countries. So we are here within the idea of depopulation, and realizing that we can look on the Bill & Melinda Gates' Charitable Works as a far more human version. For further reading three LINKs are given below.
Concluding, I would like to say: unterstanding and commenting the past doesn't help much. THEY are acting and THEY are planning, day by day. Things only will change if 'we' are planning and acting, too. And if 'we' want a better world our instruments must be better than THEIRs.
Kind regards, Gerhard (Germany)
https://www.population-security.org (look also into INTRO)
https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/book-review-empty-planet-explores-the-world-s-next-biggest-population-threat-1.848236 (opposite perspective but the same thinking; pure academic stuff)
The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (hrsg. von Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses)Et Tu @12--DeQuincey , May 27 2020 0:57 utc | 21
The New York Times occasionally publishes something worthy of reading. One such item I linked to @ 1 above.vato 13 wroteRichard Steven Hack , May 27 2020 1:34 utc | 22Soviet invasion? The Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty signed in December 1978 permitted - inter alia - military assistance and advice to the Afghani government if requested. Saying the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan is like saying Russia invaded Syria.
Treaty of friendship, good-neighbourliness and co operation. Signed at Moscow on 5 December 1978
b fix the error in your report please.Posted by: arby | May 26 2020 20:03 utc | 7 I'm pretty sure that attacking Afghanistan was planned before 911 as well, so there must be some reason for that.
It's called 1) oil pipeline, and 2) heroin for the CIA to finance their "black black" operations. That's not a typo: there are "black budget" operations not identified in the Federal budget - and "black black" operations that are financed outside the Federal budget. No one knows how much that is.
The "official" Black Budget operations are described in a Harvard University document as:
On March 18, 2019 the Office the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), announced its request for the largest sum ever, $62.8 billion, for funding U.S. intelligence operations in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.1This request spans the classified funding from more than a dozen agencies that make up the National Intelligence Program (NIP).2 The U.S. Government spends these funds on data collection, counterintelligence, and covert action.3 The DNI also requested $21.2 billion for FY 2019 for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) devoted to intelligence activity in support of U.S. military operations.4 For FY2020, it is likely to request a similar figure, for a total estimated request of approximately $85 billion for the "Black Budget," t he U.S. Government's secret military and intelligence expenditures.
Interesting article here that shows how some of this has been done in Asia, Saudi Arabia, Central America, etc.
CIA Funding: Never Constrained by its Congressional Budget
And from The Intercept - another clear example:
The U.S. Quietly Released Afghanistan's "Biggest Drug Kingpin" From Prison. Did He Cut a Deal?
Before his arrest, the alleged drug trafficker worked with the CIA and the DEA, received payments from the government, and, at one point, visited Washington and New York on the DEA's dime. ,/BLOCKQUOTE
From the Federation of American Scientists:
A Tangled Web: A History of CIA Complicity in Drug International Trafficking
May 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
There are two stories that seem to have been under-reported in the past couple of weeks. The first involves Michael Flynn's dealings with the Russian United Nations Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. And the second describes yet another bit of espionage conducted by a foreign country directed against the United States. Both stories involve the State of Israel.
The bigger story is, of course, the dismissal by Attorney General William Barr of the criminal charges against former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn based on malfeasance by the FBI investigators. The curious aspect of the story as it is being related by the mainstream media is that it repeatedly refers to Flynn as having unauthorized contacts with the Russian Ambassador and then having lied about it. The implication is that there was something decidedly shady about Flynn talking to the Russians and that the Russians were up to something.
In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22, 2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd .
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong, but the media is acting like there was some kind of Kremlin conspiracy seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. It would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team and Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump overtures since he voted contrary to Flynn's request.
The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time, son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see himself that way.
Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible.
The second story , which has basically been made to disappear, relates to spying by Israel against critics in the United States. The revelation that Israel was again using its telecommunications skills to spy on foreigners came from an Oakland California federal court lawsuit initiated by Facebook (FB) against the Israeli surveillance technology company NSO Group. FB claimed that NSO has been using servers located in the United States to infect with spyware hundreds of smartphones being used by attorneys, journalists, human rights activists, critics of Israel and even of government officials. NSO allegedly used WhatsApp, a messaging app owned by FB, to hack into the phones and install malware that would enable the company to monitor what was going on with the devices. It did so by employing networks of remote servers located in California to enter the accounts.
NSO has inevitably claimed that they do indeed provide spyware, but that it is sold to clients who themselves operate it with the "advice and technical support to assist customers in setting up" but it also promotes its products as being "used to stop terrorism, curb violent crime, and save lives." It also asserts that its software cannot be used against U.S. phone numbers.
Facebook, which did its own extensive research into NSO activity, alleges that NSO rented a Los Angeles-based server from a U.S. company called QuadraNet that it then used to launch 720 hacks on smartphones and other devices. It further claims in the court filing that the company reverse-engineering WhatsApp, using an program that it developed to access WhatsApp's servers and deploy "its spyware against approximately 1,400 targets" before " covertly transmit[ting] malicious code through WhatsApp servers and inject[ing]" spyware into telephones without the knowledge of the owners."
The filing goes on to assert that the "Defendants had no authority to access WhatsApp's servers with an imposter program, manipulate network settings, and commandeer the servers to attack WhatsApp users. That invasion of WhatsApp's servers and users' devices constitutes unlawful computer hacking."
NSO, which is largely staffed by former (sic) Israeli intelligence officers, had previously been in the news for its proprietary spyware known as Pegasus, which "can gather information about a mobile phone's location, access its camera, microphone and internal hard drive, and covertly record emails, phone calls and text messages." Pegasus was reportedly used in the killing of Saudi dissident journalist Adnan Kashoggi in Istanbul last year and it has more recently been suggested as a resource for tracking coronavirus distance violators. Outside experts have accused the company of selling its technology and expertise to countries that have used it to spy on dissidents, journalists and other critics.
Israel routinely exploits the access provided by its telecommunications industry to spy on the host countries where those companies operate. The companies themselves report regularly back to Mossad contacts and the technology they provide routinely has a "backdoor" for secretly accessing the information accessible through the software. In fact, Israel conducts espionage and influence operations both directly and through proxies against the United States more aggressively than any other "friendly" country, which once upon a time included being able to tap into the "secure" White House phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica Lewinsky.
Last September, it was revealed that the placement of technical surveillance devices by Israel in Washington D.C. was clearly intended to target cellphone communications to and from the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats with top aides and friends on non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations involving Trump with the expectation that the security-averse president would say things off the record that might be considered top secret.
A Politico report detailed how "miniature surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" were used to imitate regular cell phone towers to fool phones being used nearby into providing information on their locations and identities. According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians as "international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that indicated the presence of the surveillance devices near the White House. Forensic analysis involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about their history, where the parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It was pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible."
So two significant stories currently making the rounds have been bowdlerized and disappeared to make the Israeli role in manipulating and spying against the United States go away. They are only two of many stories framed by a Zionist dominated media to control the narrative in a way favorable to the Jewish state. One would think that having a president of the United States who is the most pro-Israel ever, which is saying a great deal in and of itself, would be enough, but unfortunately when dealing with folks like Benjamin Netanyahu there can never be any restraint when dealing with the "useful idiots" in Washington.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is firstname.lastname@example.org .
May 26, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.comdiv Was Flynn a complete idiot or already ont he hook and in a position not to deny McCabe reuaest not to use lawer? @Jim
So you can only conceive of three reasons for a person to "lawyer up"?
How about this: A badged employee of the government wish to ask you a few question. Just to help in their investigation of something or another. So you go in to be interrogated. Your interrogator has 20 years of employment and has done several interrogations a week for those 20 years. It is your first time being interrogated.
A smart person asks for a lawyer immediately. You are the pine rider for the little sisters of the poor and the interrogator is Nolan Ryan. You are Rudy the waterboy and the interrogator is Dick Butkus. You are a mook a skell, just another low life.
As a general rule, you get yourself a lawyer first before you answer anything. This is something General Flynn knew and ignored.
But, But, BUT I am innocent, I have nothing to hide, it is a citizens duty to "help" legitimate authority, I dindunuffin innocence is irrelevant. All of us have our secrets and our private things and you can become a liar to legal authority quicker than you can imagine just by one wrong word, or one nervous twitch, or a simple hesitation, even an ambiguity in your wording of some innocuous answer to some "unimportant" question.
You can ask the Colonel how interrogation works he spent many years honing his art.
Keith Harbaugh , 24 May 2020 at 04:44 PMFor how an innocent person can be caught in a perjury trap, read Chapters 18 and 19, "The FBI Comes Calling" and "Investigated By Mueller, Harassed By Congress" of K.T. McFarland's book "Revolution".
It only costs $9.99 at Google Play Store and IMO, is well worth it for those two chapters alone. (Hope that endorsement for the book is okay in context.)
May 26, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Terence Gore , 22 May 2020 at 11:55 PMhttps://original.antiwar.com/Reese_Erlich/2020/05/21/michael-flynns-forgotten-turkish-connection/blue peacock , 23 May 2020 at 11:33 AM
"In 2019, a federal jury convicted Flynn's business associate, Bijan Kian, on two felonies: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws and failure to register as a foreign agent for Turkey. Flynn was scheduled to testify against Kian but changed his story at the last minute, causing problems for the prosecution. The judge later tossed the verdict, saying the prosecution didn't prove its case.
As part of an overall deal with federal prosecutors, Flynn was never charged in connection with his lobbying for Turkey. It seems unlikely that he ever will"
I don't know much about this aspect of the Flynn SagaRobTerence Gore , 23 May 2020 at 01:23 PM
The DC Circuit court wants Sullivan to explain himself. That will be instructive as to why he wants Gleeson to provide a third party opinion of why Flynn should be charged with perjury.
This is one aspect of Flynn that seems a bit shady but very much in line with how DC trades in influence peddling. Apparently he was paid by Turkey to use his influence and put together a media campaign to get Gulen extradited to Turkey.Blue Peacock
I've been hearing both positive and negative on the Gulen movement for years but like many things I don't feel I have a good handle on it.
mostly positive article on gulen
a nothing to see here article on graham fuller
Flynn's ties to an anti gulen documentary
a negative article on graham fuller
May 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
The new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apparently learned how to behave from the Corbyn experience. He has been crawling on his belly to Jewish interests ever since he took over and has even submitted to the counseling provided by the government's "Independent Adviser on Antisemitism," a special interests office not too dissimilar to the abomination at the U.S. State Department where Elan Carr is the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism.
The adviser, Lord Mann, who like Carr is of course Jewish, has now insisted to Starmer that the use of words like ''Zionist'' or ''Zionism'' in a critical context must be regarded as anti-Semitism if Starmer wants to establish what he refers to as "comprehensive anti-racism" within the Labour Party. Mann wants to confront what he refers to as "anti-Jewish racism" in Britain, saying that "the thing Keir Starmer has to do is stick with the clear definition of antisemitism, and not waver from that. The second thing he should do if he wants to really imbed comprehensive anti-racism including antisemitism across the Labour Party – then the use of the words Zionist or Zionism as a term of hatred, abuse, of contempt, as a negative term – that should outlawed in the party."
Perhaps not surprisingly Lord Mann's comments came during an online discussion with the Antisemitism Policy Trust's director Danny Stone, one of the major components of Israel's powerful U.K. Jewish/Zionist Lobby. A majority of British Members of Parliament of both parties are registered supporters of "Friends of Israel" associations, another indication of how Jewish power is manifest in Britain and of how spineless the country's politicians have become.
Mann added: "If he does that, it gives him [Starmer] the tools to clear out those who choose to be antisemitic, rather than those who do so purely through their ignorance as opposed to their calculated behavior. I think he is seeing tackling antisemitism as one of those things that will be shown to mark that he is a leader."
So, in Britain you are still presumably free to criticize Zionism, but not Israelis, as long as you do not use the word itself. If you do use it in a critical way you will be one of those presumably who will be "cleared out [of the Labour Party] for choosing to be antisemitic." Do not be alarmed if similar nonsense takes hold in the United States, where already criticism of Israel, such as it is, eschews the word Jewish in any context. Fearful of retribution that can include loss of employment as happened to Rick Sanchez at CNN, the few who are bold enough to criticize Israel regularly employ generic euphemisms like the "Israel Lobby" or "Zionism," ignoring the fact that what drives the process is ethno- or religious based. However one chooses to obfuscate it, the power of Israel in the United States is undeniably based on Jewish money, media control and easy access to politicians. When the friends of Israel in America follow the British lead and figure out that the word Zionist has become pejorative they too will no doubt move to make it unacceptable in polite discourse in the media and elsewhere. Then many critics of the Jewish state will have no vocabulary left to use, nowhere to go, as in Britain, and that is surely the intention.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is email@example.com .
May 25, 2020 | www.theguardian.com
When it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch
'Pompeo is a natural Trumpist.' Donald Trump's disdain for the people, country and values his office is supposed to represent is unmatched in recent memory. And he has found in the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo , a kindred spirit who has embraced his role as Trumpism's number one proselytizer to the world.
Pompeo doesn't wield nearly as much power or have the jurisdiction to inflict damage on as wide a range of issues as the president. He's not as crass or erratic as Trump, and his Twitter feed seems dedicated more to childish mockery than outright attacks. But when it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch.
At Pompeo's recommendation, Trump fired the state department's inspector general, who is supposed to be an independent investigator charged with looking into potential wrongdoing inside the department. Steve Linick was just the latest in a series of inspectors general across the government that Trump had fired in an attempt to hide the misconduct of his administration – but it also shone a spotlight on how Pompeo has undermined his agency.
Watchdog was investigating Pompeo for arms deal and staff misuse before firing
According to news reports, Pompeo was being investigated by the inspector general for bypassing Congress and possibly breaking the law in sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, even though his own department and the rest of the US government advised against the decision. He was also supposedly organizing fancy dinners – paid for by taxpayers – with influential businesspeople and TV personalities that seemed geared more towards supporting Pompeo's political career than advancing US foreign policy goals. And he was reportedly being scrutinized for using department personnel to conduct personal business, such as getting dry cleaning and walking his dog.
But these revelations merely reaffirm a pattern of activities by Pompeo unbecoming of the nation's top diplomat. When the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Trump over his attempt to extort Ukraine for personal political purposes – an act that Pompeo was aware of – Pompeo defended Trump while throwing under the bus career state department officials, like the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who spoke out. Pompeo has regularly ignored Congress, withholding documents from lawmakers – including during the Ukraine impeachment investigation – and refusing to appear for testimony. In 2019, the IG released a report detailing political retaliation against career state department officials being perpetrated by Trump officials. And Pompeo has spent considerable time traveling to Kansas and conducting media interviews there, fueling speculation that he has been using his position to tee up a run for the Senate, a violation of the Hatch Act.
Pompeo is a natural Trumpist. In her fantastic profile of the secretary of state, Susan Glasser notes of his first congressional race: "Pompeo ran a nasty race against the Democrat, an Indian-American state legislator named Raj Goyle, who, unlike Pompeo, had grown up in Wichita. Pompeo's campaign tweeted praise for an article calling Goyle a 'turban topper', and a supporter bought billboards urging residents to 'Vote American – Vote Pompeo'."
... ... ...Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized the state department on the president's behalf.' Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Next to Trump's assault on US values, Pompeo's role as top Trump lackey may seem insignificant. But the secretary of state is often the most senior US official that other countries and publics hear from on any number of issues. Even with Trump in the Oval Office, a secretary of state that was committed to the constitution - not Trump - would at least be able to fight for the values that US foreign policy should embody, and shield the department's day-to-day business from Trump's outbursts.
The work that department professionals conduct around the world – helping American citizens abroad get home in the early days of the pandemic or coordinating assistance to other countries to cope with the coronavirus – is vital to American national security, and at the core of the image that America projects abroad.
Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized the state department on his behalf
... ... ...
May 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
vk , May 25 2020 15:19 utc | 83
Mussolini then realized something very simple: the human being is not inherently rational. Reason is something that does not occur naturally to human beings, but is rather something human beings must learn. Therefore, communism could be defeated in elections and in the streets if the massification of reason was contained in due time. Hence the crude, irrational violence of fascism. And it worked: the communists were defeated by violence in Italy, and Hitler would do the same in the 1932-3 elections (who was leading the persecution of communists at the time? Future second-in-command Hermann Göring).
If I could sum up fascism and all its different variants in one word, it would be this: irrationality. Fascism must resort to irrational arguments and narratives in order to manipulate the masses and gain monopoly of violence and, once its hegemony is secure, resort to art and aesthetics to keep the consensus, in the sense that political domination must be presented to the public as a form of art, and not as a field of class struggle. This can be clearly illustrated by the Nazi chain of command: Hitler (political leader, mastermind), Göring (violence, armed forces), Goebbels (propaganda) and... Albert Speer, the ideal Nazi (architect cum military).
May 25, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com
- davidhabakkuk says: May 25, 2020 at 12:22 pm The kind of view of the end of the Cold War which underpins Billingslea's notion that the United States can spend Russia and China into 'oblivion' is that championed by people who totally failed to anticipate what happened in the Soviet Union in the 'Eighties, and have not seen this fact as reason for rethinking the assumptions that caused them to get things so radically wrong.
The extent of the incompetence involved is vividly apparent in the collection of documents from the American and Soviet sides published by the 'National Security Archive' in January 2017, under the title 'The Last Superpower Summits.'
Particularly revealing, to my mind, is Document 12, the transcript of the closed-door testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the top three CIA analysts of the Soviet Union, Doug MacEachin, Robert Blackwell, and Paul Ericson, at the precise moment, in December 1988, when Gorbachev announced his 500,000 troop cut at the U.N.
The editors comment:
'And MacEachin offers a true confession in an extraordinary passage that demonstrates how prior assumptions about Soviet behavior, rather than actual intelligence data points, actually drove intelligence findings: "Now, we spend megadollars studying political instability in various places around the world, but we never really looked at the Soviet Union as a political entity in which there were factors building which could lead to the kind of – at least the initiation of political transformation that we seem to see. It does not exist to my knowledge. Moreover, had it existed inside the government, we never would have been able to publish it anyway, quite frankly. And had we done so, people would have been calling for my head. And I wouldn't have published it. In all honesty, had we said a week ago that Gorbachev might come to the UN and offer a unilateral cut of 500,000 in the military, we would have been told we were crazy. We had a difficult enough time getting air space for the prospect of some unilateral cuts of 50 to 60,000."
Actually, it was quite possible to do much better, without spending 'megadollars', if one simply went to the Chatham House Library and/or the London Library and looked at what competent analysts, like those working for the Foreign Policy Studies Program then run by the late, great John Steinbruner at Brookings – a very different place then from now.
Among those he employed were two of the best former intelligence analysts of Soviet military strategy: Ambassador Raymond Garthoff and Commander Michael MccGwire, R.N., to give them their titles when in government service.
These has devoted a great deal of effort to explaining that Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard, a key influence in creating the 'groupthink' MacEachin described, had missed a crucial transition away from nuclear war planning to conventional 'deep operations' in the late 'Sixties and 'Seventies.
Inturn, this led Garthoff and MccGwire to grasp that the Gorbachev-era 'new thinkers' had decided that the conventional 'deep operations' posture in turn needed to be abandoned. For a summary of the latter's arguments, see article entitled 'Rethinking War: The Soviets and European Security', published in the Spring 1988 edition of the 'Brookings Review', available on the 'Unz Review' site.
(See https://www.unz.com/print/BrookingsRev-1988q2-00003/ .)
Also associated with Brookings at the time was the Duke University Sovietologist Jerry Hough, who had read his way through the writings of academics in the institutes associated with the Academy of Sciences on development economics, and talked extensively to many of their authors.
In the 'Conclusion' to his 1986 study, 'The Struggle for the Third World: Soviet Debates and American Options', Hough wrote:
'Or what is one to say about the argument – now very widely accepted – among Soviet economists – that countries with "capitalist-oriented" economies in the third world have a natural tendency to grow more rapidly than countries with a "socialist orientation" because well-rounded development seems to be dependent on foreign investment and integration into the world market? A quarter of a century ago, let alone in the Stalin period, it was just as widely accepted that integration into the capitalist world economy doomed a third world country to slow, deformed growth and that foreign investment exploited a local economy.'
One thing one could say is that this recognition that fundamental premises of the Marxist-Leninist view of the world had turned out wrong was simple an acknowledgement of the ways that the world had changed. And that view of the world had defined the political framework in which Soviet contingency planning for war had developed.
Central to this had been the premise of a 'natural' teleology of history towards socialism, with the risk of war in the international system arising from the attempts of the 'imperialist' powers to resist this.
So there were profound pressures, which really were not simply created by the Reagan military build-up and SDI, for radical changes in the Soviet security posture. Questions were obviously raised, however, as to whether these – together with radical domestic reform – would defuse Western hostility.
Fascinating here is Document 11, a memo to Gorbachev from a key advisor, Georgy Arbatov, the director of the 'Institute for U.S.A. and Canada' from the previous June. This sets the plan for the 500,000 troop reduction in the context both of the wider conception of liquidating the capability for large-scale offensive operations described MccGwire, and also of the perceived importance of breaking the 'image of the enemy' in the West.
While both Gorbachev, and Arbatov, were widely perceived in the West as engaged in a particularly dangerous 'active measures' campaign, it is striking how closely the thinking set out in the memo echoes that the latter had articulated the previous December in a letter to the 'New York Times', in response to a column by William Safire.
(See https://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/08/opinion/l-it-takes-two-to-make-a-cold-war-963287.html .)
Headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', it expresses key assumptions underlying the 'new thinking.' Two crucial paragraphs:
'If the Soviet Union should accept the proposed rules of the game and devotedly continue the cold war, then, of course, sooner or later, the whole thing would end in a calamity. But at least Mr. Safire's plan would work. The only problem I see here is that the Soviet Union will not pick up the challenge and accept the proposed rules of the game. And then Americans would find themselves in exactly the same position Mr. Safire and his ilk, as he himself writes, are finding themselves in now: history would pass them by, and years from now they would be "regarded as foot-draggers and sourpusses," because almost no one in the world is willing to play the games of the American right. Least of all, the Soviet Union.
'And here we have a "secret weapon" that will work almost regardless of the American response e would deprive America of The Enemy. And how would you justify without it the military expenditures that bleed the American economy white, a policy that draws America into dangerous adventures overseas and drives wedges between the United States and its allies, not to mention the loss of American influence on neutral countries? Wouldn't such a policy in the absence of The Enemy put America in the position of an outcast in the international community?'
There was however another question which was raised by the patent bankrupcy of Marxism-Leninism, which bore very directly upon what Arbatov, in his memorandum to Gorbachev.
If one accepted that Soviet-style economics had led to a dead end, and that integration into the U.S. dominated global economic order was the road to successful development, questions obviously arose about not simply about how far, and how rapidly, one should attempt to dismantle not simply the command economy.
But they also arose about whether it was prudent to dismantle the authoritarian political system with which it was associated, at the same time.
In a lecture given in 2010, entitled 'The Cold War: A View from Russia', the historian Vladimir O. Pechatnov, himself a product of Arbatov's institute, would provide a vivid picture of the disillusion felt by 'liberalising' intellectuals within the Soviet apparatus, like himself.
(See http://jhss-khazar.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/01.pdf .)
However, he also made the – rather interesting – suggestion that, had logic of central arguments by George F. Kennan, the figure generally, if in my own view somewhat misleadingly, regarded as the principal architect of post-war American strategy, actually pointed rather decisively away from the assumption that a rapid dismantling of the authoritarian system was wise.
And Pechatnov pointed to the very ambivalent implications of the view of the latent instability of Soviet society expressed in Kennan's famous July 1947 'X-article':
'So, if Communist Party is incapacitated, the Soviet Russia, I quote, "would almost overnight turn from one of the mightiest into one of the weakest and miserable nations of the world "). Had Gorbachev read Kennan and realized this causal connection (as Deng and his colleagues most definitely had), he might have thought twice before abruptly terminating the Communist monopoly on power.'
What is involved here is a rather fundamental fact – that in their more optimistic assumptions, people like Arbatov and Gorbachev turned out to be simply wrong.
Crucially, rather than marginalising people like Pipes, and Safire, and Billingslea, an effect of the retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to convince a very substantial part of what had been the 'Peace Movement' coalition that their erstwhile opponents had been vindicated.
However, the enthusiasm of people like Billingslea for a retry of the supposed successful 'Reagan recipe' brings another irony.
As to SDI, it was well-known at the time that it could easily be countered, at relatively low cost, with 'asymetric' measures.
This is well brought out in Garthoff's discussion in his 2001 Memoir 'A Journey through the Cold War: A Memoir of Containment and Coexistence' (see p. 356.) For a more recent discussion, in the light of declassified materials, which reaches the same conclusion, see a piece in the 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' by Pavel Podvig from April 2013, entitled 'Shooting down the Star Wars myth' at
And if one bothers to follow the way that arguments have been developing outside the 'bubble' in which most inhabitants of Washington D.C., and London exist, it is evident that people in Moscow, and Beijing, have thought about the lessons of this history. Those who think that they are going to be suckered into an arms race that the United States can win are quite patently delusional.
May 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
uncle tungsten , May 25 2020 0:44 utc | 56vk #4
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With China's BRI
The battle for Australia's soul has begun.
Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet.
This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences.
On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...
Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it. Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.
May 24, 2020 | original.antiwar.com"A 'Neocon' is neither new or conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell." – Edward Abbey
Being an unrepentant Neocon, such as William (Bill) Kristol, means never having to say you're sorry. To qualify, you need to be an ideologue, who also has paid no price for recklessly cheerleading 4,488 U.S. troops to their deaths in the illegal and immoral Iraq War, plus another 32,223 who were seriously wounded (2003-2011).
It also helps to have a significant media platform and not to give a good hoot about how many innocent Iraqis died via the U.S.-led invasion and/or the occupation of that country. (Try an estimated 655,000.)
By the way, false prophet, Kristol: Our troops found "No" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Let me formally introduce – William Kristol, age 67, out of New York City, now Northern Virginia, warmonger extraordinaire, ultra-conservative, and currently editor at large of Bulwark magazine.
For years, we've heard Kristol on the TV/Cable/Network shows making outrageous statements, like this one: "The war in Iraq could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." (09/18/2001).
The other day, May 20, 2020, Kristol was the subject of a puff piece profile in the Washington Post , by reporter KK Ottesen. The article made no mention of Kristol's disgusting role in promoting the Iraq War. Instead, he was given the opportunity to rip President Donald Trump on how he has been mismanaging the coronavirus crisis. (Well, heck, everybody knows that.)
There was also no mention by the reporter of the possible real reasons that Kristol was dumping on Trump. One could be that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had trashed Kristol's and the Neocons' support of the Iraq War.
And, also Trump has indicated he doesn't have any plans to reignite another of Kristol's favorites schemes – "a Cold War with Russia." These are just two of the reasons the "Neocons, like Kristol, can't stomach Trump," according to the commentator, JP Sottile, of Consortium News.
The idea that Kristol is some kind of genuine dissenter and is opposing Trump because he's concerned about the quality of his leadership is pure nonsense. The Washington Post allowed Kristol to use the paper for this dubious exercise and it has no one to blame but itself.
During last year's Democratic presidential primary, Kristol took a swipe at the candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and posted a tweet that said: "#Never Sanders." The popular antiwar candidate responded to Kristol: "Have you apologized to the nation for your foolish advocacy of the Iraq War? I make no apologies for opposing it." Sanders then added this zinger: "I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran."
The Neocon replied: "I will defend my views on Iraq as you defend yours." Sen. Sanders underscored how Kristol had called for regime change in Iraq as early at 1998; and that Kristol also predicted the conflict would last "only two months;" and that he had repeatedly argued for the Bush-Cheney Gang to send in more troops. As early at 2006, Kristol was urging the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, asking, "Why wait?"
Flashback: The first time I laid eyes on the cunning Neocon, Kristol was at a pro-Iraq War rally held on the National Mall, on April 12, 2003, in Washington, D.C., G. Gordon Liddy and the late, ex-U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) were there, along with some other Right Wing types.
What was really weird about the whole affair was the appearance of that so-called comedian, Ben Stein. He showed up on a huge video screen endorsing the war. It should have had "a warning label" on it!
I recall a lady in the modest crowd of about fifty at that event saying of Kristol: "Oh, look how small he is!" She was right. Kristol is, indeed, on the very short side. I'd say that he comes in at about 5 ft. 4 or 5 inches. It seems that, as a result of his tiny body frame, his head appears more massive than it really is. The rally was boring. I didn't stay long.
In a way, Kristol reminded me, in a physical sense, of the late actor Peter Lorre. Whether Kristol has a "Little Man (Napoleon) Complex," or not, I will leave to the experts in the field. All I know for sure is that he's a relentlessly angry, pusher of costly and unnecessary wars.
(During the Iraq War, there were countless protest actions mounted by ten of thousands of splendid antiwar activists across the country. Many of them were held on the National Mall, and other sites in our nation's capital.)
Here is another gem from Kristol: "The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably." (April 28, 2003) And, then there is this whopper from the slippery Neocon: "The Iraqi elections of Jan. 30, 2005 could be a key moment perhaps the key moment so far in vindicating the 'Bush/Cheney Doctrine' as the right response to 9/11." (March 7, 2005)
Of course, it wouldn't be fair to leave out this one from Kristol: "It is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve, in either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory." (Nov. 30, 2005)
As a result of an onslaught of Kristol's articles and media appearances in support of the Iraq invasion, the Washington Post 's Richard Cohen dubbed the conflict: "Kristol's War!" Right on, Mr. Cohen.
The estimated cost of the Iraq War to the U.S. taxpayers runs to a high of around $1.7 trillion!
If Kristol has any regrets with respect to his amoral advocacy for the Iraq War (which was launched by the Bush-Cheney Gang based on a pack of rotten lies) and/or about the staggering US casualties in Iraq, I have never heard him express them.
If Kristol has any empathy for the innocent Iraqi dead and wounded, the Iraqi women and children who have suffered and are continuing to suffer from that conflict, along with the tens of thousands of Iraqi homes that have been destroyed, and also for those 3.8 million Iraqis made into refugees, then he's kept those kinds of feelings to himself.
(The other amazing thing about Kristol is how he's repeatedly able to get his distorted views on our televisions and in our newspapers. It's like he has to only press a button and there he is. It is all so – Orwellian!)
In any event, when the name of William Kristol, the Neocon, is mentioned, I think callous indifference to human life and suffering.
The next time the Neocon Kristol visits the Arlington National Cemetery, over in Virginia, to honor our Iraqi War dead, will be his FIRST! Despite all of the above, he continues to argue for a U.S.-led attack on Iran. Kristol insists: "Invading Iran is not a bad idea!"
If warmongering isn't a Hate Crime and/or a Hate Speech, then maybe it should be. (Peace Movement, please copy.) That would give the heartless Kristol something to think about when he advocates for the launching of yet another monstrosity, like the Iraq War.
Bill Hughes is an attorney, author, actor and photographer. His latest book is Byline Baltimore . Contact the author. Reprinted from the Baltimore Post-Examiner with the author's permission.
May 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Piotr Berman , May 23 2020 19:01 utc | 7Trump is mostly concerned with giving handouts to the MIC because he thinks "the economy" is based on jobs in the MIC since that is what they tell him is where US manufacturing is now based.
Posted by: Kali | May 23 2020 18:16 utc | 2
To a degree, it is true. However, the problem with MIC as an economic stimulant is rather pitiful multiplier effect. For starters, the costs are hopelessly bloated. Under rather watchful Putin, Russia does its piece of arms race at a very small fraction of American costs. By the same token, pro-economy effects of arms spending in USA are seriously diluted -- the spending is surely there, but the extend of activity is debatable For example, in aerospace, there is a big potential for civilian applications of technologies developed for the military. Scant evidence in Boeing that should be a prime beneficiary. The fabled toilet seat (that cost many thousands of dollars) similarly failed to find civilian applications. Civilians inclined to overpriced toilets, like Mr. Trump himself, rely on low-tech methods like gold-plating.
A wider problem is shared by entire GOP: aversion to any government programs, and least of all industry promoting programs, that could benefit ordinary citizens. This is the exclusive domain of the free market! Once you refuse to consider that, only MIC remains, plus some boondogles like interstate highways. Heaven forfend to improve public transit or to repair almost-proverbial crumbling dams and bridges.
Charles D , May 23 2020 19:19 utc | 11We have to ask cui bono - who benefits from a new nuclear arms race? General Electric, Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman et al. No one else really. Since these corporations also own the Congress and have zillions to fund Trump's re-election, they will probably get the go-ahead to spend the rest of the world into oblivion.vk , May 23 2020 19:42 utc | 12Apart from the obvious fact that the MIC is the only viable engine of propulsion of the American "real economy" (a.k.a. "manufacturing"), there's the more macabre fact that, if we take Trump's administration first military papers into consideration, it seems there's a growing coterie inside the Pentagon and the WH that firmly believes MAD can be broken vis-a-vis China.DontBelieveEitherPr , May 23 2020 19:58 utc | 15
Hence the "Prompt Global Strike" doctrine (which is taking form with the commission of the new B-21 "Raider" strategic bomber, won by Northrop Grumman), the rise of the concept of "tactical nukes" (hence the extinction of the START, and the Incirlik Base imbroglio post failed coup against Erdogan) and, most importantly, the new doctrine of "bringing manufacture back".
The USA is suffering from a structural valorization problem. The only way out is finding new vital space through which it can initiate a new cycle of valorization. The only significant vital space to be carved out in the 21st Century is China, with its 600 million-sized middle class (the world's largest middle class, therefore the world's largest potential consumer market). It won two decades with the opening of the ex-Soviet vital space, but it was depleted in the 2000s, finally exploding in 2006-2008.
How many decades does the Americans think they can earn by a hypothetical unilateral destruction of China?Having a treaty that limits power (in this case nuclear) on the same level for the US and any other country is simply totally against the ideology of US Superority/Exeptionalism.bevin , May 23 2020 20:33 utc | 19
That seems to be the driving (psychological and ideological) factor behind this charade.
And like this sick ideology always ends: It too will backfire.
@gepay: another problem is people that disagree with Bernhard on COVID, but then use this disagreement to not read his artciles anymore.
So many people only want to read what they want to hear, and run away at the first real different view.
The narcissism, that our neoliberal societies inducded in its people the last decade shows.. And seeing both sides and everything in between is not possible anymore for a majority it seems.
And living in a bubble is so comforting and easy in todays world. On MSM and on Alt Media alike."...that may well fit Trump's plans of pushing all arms control regimes into oblivion."Piotr Berman , May 23 2020 20:38 utc | 21
It's not just arms control regimes, as the WHO business showed. This is the Roy Cohn agenda showing up again- the old GOP objection to the UN and all other international organisations. It is pure ideology-the US has gained immensely from dominating the organisations of which it is a part, leaving them makes no sense at all.
As to 'spending China to oblivion". This only works when every Pentagon dollar spent forces China or Russia to spend a dollar themselves. In such a contest the richest country wins. But that only works in the context of pre-nuclear warfare. With the nuclear deterrent it becomes possible to opt out of all the money wasting nonsense represented by the Pentagon budget, sit back and say, as the Chinese diplomat evidently did, "Just try it."
Which adds up to the conclusion that it is wholly irrational of the United States to denounce treaties designed to reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used: it is to the advantage of Washington that other powers, potential rivals, are forced to build up conventional forces because they are bound by treaty not to rely on nuclear weapons.
So, again: pure ideology designed for domestic consumption and advanced by the most reactionary elements in American society- the Jesse Helms good ol' boys who make the neo-cons look almost human.He likes economic war (against everybody), they want actual war. Laguerre | May 23 2020 20:17 utcJen , May 23 2020 21:17 utc | 24
Trump has a primitive mercantile mind. There is nothing inherently wrong about mercantilism, but a primitive version of anything tends to be mediocre at best. Thus he loves war that give profit, like Yemen where natives are bombed with expensive products made in USA (and unfortunately, also UK, France etc., but the bulk goes to USA). Then he loves wars the he thinks will give profit, like "keeping oil fields in Syria". Some people told him that oil fields are profitable (although they can go bankrupt just like casinos).
Privately, I think that Trump wanted to make a war with Iran, but the generals explained him what kind of disaster that would be.
One difference is that Democrats are aligned with uber Zionist of slightly less rabid variety than Republicans. A bit like black bears vs grizzlies. Unfortunately, like in the animal kingdom, when the push comes to shove, black bears defer to grizzlies, so on the side of Palestinians etc. there is no difference.Billingslea's "spending ... into oblivion" statement reflects the belief, still widespread among US neocon political / military elites, that the Soviet Union was brought down and destroyed by its attempts to keep up with US military spending throughout the 1980s. This alone tells us how steeped in past fantasy the entire US political and military establishment must be. Compared to Rip van Winkle, these people are comatose.
Spending the enemy into oblivion may be "tried and true" practice but only when the enemy is much poorer than yourself in arms production and in one type of weapons manufacture. That certainly does not apply to either Russia or China these days. Both nations think more strategically and do not waste precious resources in parading and projecting military power abroad, or rely almost exclusively on old, decaying technologies and a narrow mindset obsessed with always being top dog in everything.
May 24, 2020 | www.unz.com
anonymous  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT
Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training
Seems rather typical of those making policy, not knowing much about the area they're assigned to. If a person did know Arabic and had an understanding of the culture they wouldn't get hired as they'd be viewed with suspicion, suspected of being sympathetic to Middle Easterners. How and why these neocons can come back into government is puzzling and one wonders who within the establishment is backing them. Judging by the quotes her father certainly seems deranged and not someone to be allowed anywhere near any policy making positions.
Flynn also seems to be a dolt what with his 'worldwide war against radical Islam'. Someone should clue him in that much of this radical Islam has been created and stoked by the US who hyped up radical Islam, recruiting and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there, remember? Flynn, a general, is unaware of this? Islamic jihadists are America's Foreign Legion and have been used all over the Muslim world, most recently in Syria. Does this portend war with Iran? Possibly, but perhaps Trump wouldn't want to go it alone but would want the financial support of other countries. They've probably war-gamed it to death and found it to be a loser.
May 23, 2020 | www.unz.com
The Global War on Terror or GWOT was declared in the wake of 9/11 by President George W. Bush. It basically committed the United States to work to eliminate all "terrorist" groups worldwide, whether or not the countries being targeted agreed that they were beset by terrorists and whether or not they welcomed U.S. "help." The GWOT was promoted with brain-dead expressions like "there's a new sheriff in town" which, after the destruction of large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, later morphed into the matrix of the God-awful belief that something called "American Exceptionalism" existed.
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United States can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes, exceptional. That is generally how Donald Trump and hardline Republicans see the world, that sovereignty exercised by foreign governments is and should be limited by the reach of the U.S. military. Surrounding a competitor with military bases and warships is a concept that many in Washington are currently trying to sell regarding a suitable response to the Chinese economic and political challenge.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo puts it another way, that the U.S. is a "force for good," but it was former Secretary Madeleine Albright who expressed the fantasy best , stating 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." She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S. imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists. Either way, the U.S. gets to make the decisions over life and death, which, since the GWOT began, have destroyed or otherwise compromised the lives of millions of people, mostly concentrated in Asia.
One aspect of the American heavy footprint that is little noted is the ruin of many formerly functioning countries that it brings with it. Iraq and Libya might have been dictatorships before the U.S. intervened, but they gave their people a higher standard of living and more security than has been the case ever since.
Libya, destroyed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had the highest standard of living in Africa. Iraq is currently one of the world's most corrupt countries, so corrupt that there have been massive street demonstrations recently against the government's inability to do anything good for the its own people. Electricity and water supplies are, for example, less reliable than before the U.S. intervened seventeen years ago.
Add Afghanistan to the "most corrupt" list after 19 years of American tutelage and one comes up with a perfect trifecta of countries that have been ruined. In a more rational world, one might have hoped that at least one American politician might have stood up and admitted that we have screwed up royally and it is beyond time to close the overseas bases and bring our troops home. Well, actually one did so in explicit terms, but that was Tulsi Gabbard and she was marginalized as soon as she started her run. Alluding to how Washington's gift to the world has been corruption would be to implicitly deny American Exceptionalism, which is a no-no.
The failures of the American foreign policy since George W. Bush have been accredited to the so-called neoconservatives, who successfully hijacked the Bush presidency. Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby and the merry crowd at the American Enterprise Institute had a major ally in Vice President Dick Cheney and were pretty much able to run wild, creating a casus belli for invading Iraq that was largely fabricated and which was completely against actual U.S. interests in the region. Apparently no one ever told Wolfie that Iraq was the Arab bulwark against Iranian ambitions and that Tehran would be the only major beneficiary in taking down Saddam Hussein. Since Iraq, the chameleonlike neocons have had a prominent voice in the mainstream media and have also played major roles in the shaping the foreign and national security policies of the presidencies that have followed George W. Bush.
Ironically, neocons mostly were critics of Donald Trump the candidate because he talked "nonsense" about ending "useless wars" but they have been trickling back into his administration since he has made it clear that he is not about to end anything and might in fact be planning to attack Iran and maybe even Venezuela. The thought of new wars, particularly against Israel's enemy Iran, makes neocons salivate.
The disastrous American occupation of Iraq from 2003-2004 was mismanaged by something called the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which might have been the most corrupt quasi-government body to be seen in recent history. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people was wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.
Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war's most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute websites, where they had posted their résumés. They were paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named director of private-sector development for all of Iraq.
The $20 billion disbursed during the 15-month proconsulship of the CPA came from frozen and seized Iraqi assets held in the U.S. Most of the money was in the form of cash, flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 "cashpaks," each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from the Iraqi accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.
Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There was also considerable money "off the books," including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil exports. Thus, the country was awash in unaccountable cash. British sources report that the CPA contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts. The contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in return.
Many of its staff, like Michael Fleischer, were selected for their political affiliations rather than their knowledge of the jobs they were supposed to perform and many of them were not surprisingly neocons. One of them has now resurfaced in a top Pentagon position. She is Simone Ledeen , daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became in 2003 a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad.
Simone has now been appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) for the Middle East, which is the principal position for shaping Pentagon policy for that region. Post 9/11, Ledeen's leading neocon father Michael was the source of the expressions "creative destruction" and "total war" as relating to the Muslim Middle East, where "civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people." He is also a noted Iranophobe, blaming numerous terrorist acts on that country even when such claims were ridiculous. He might also have been involved in the generation in Italy of the fabricated Iraq Niger uranium documents that contributed greatly to the march to war with Saddam.
Apparently Simone's gene pool makes her qualified to lead the Pentagon into the Middle East, where she no doubt has views that make her compatible with the Trump/Pompeo current spin on the Iranian threat. The neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) gushed "Simone Ledeen has worked at the Pentagon & Treasury and at a major bank. Exactly what we should want for such a position." Of course, FDD, the leading advocate of war with Iran, also wants someone who will green light destroying the Persians.
Ledeen, a Brandeis graduate with an MBA from an Italian university, worked in and out of government in various advisory capacities before joining Standard Chartered Bank. One of her more interesting roles was as an advisor to General Michael Flynn in Afghanistan at a time when Flynn was collaborating with her father on a book that eventually came out in 2016 entitled The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. The book asserts that there is a global war going on in which "We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua." The book predictably claims that Iran is at the center of what is an anti-American alliance.
The extent to which Simone has absorbed her father's views and agrees with them can, of course, be questioned, but her appointment is yet another indication, together with the jobs previously given to John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliot Abrams , that the Trump Administration is intent on pursuing a hardline aggressive policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is also an unfortunate indication that the neoconservatives, pronounced dead after the election of Trump, are back and resuming their drive to obtain the positions of power that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.
Beavertales , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:31 pm GMT'Maximum Pressure' is being exerted on Trump.KA , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT
How was he leveraged to order the assassination of Iran's general Qasem Soleimani?
It's all about manufacturing new threats to his presidency, and then offering to switch them off when he trades something the neocons want. The politics of extortion.If "??Operation Iraqi Freedom"? may accurately be regarded as Wolfowitz's War in its conception, then the aftermath of the war should be viewed as the Kissinger-Feith Occupation" and continuation of illegal sanctions by "Democrat, Bill Clinton, and his meretricious Middle East foreign policy team of Samuel "Sandy" Berger, Madeleine "??it's worth it"? Albright, Dennis Ross, and Australian import, Martin Indyk. " but it was "KA , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
Kissinger's partner and frontman in Baghdad, Paul "??Jerry"? Bremer, which has effectively destroyed Iraq as a nation-state, " and But within weeks of the invasion, Garner's tenure as head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert and protege of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner's "musts". [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: "There is still time to rectify this," Rumsfeld refused to do so. And who was assisting Dr. Kissinger to program the new U.S. proconsul in Baghdad? Who was Paul Bremer's primary contact at the Pentagon, overseeing the occupation from Washington, with the blessing of Don Rumsfeld? None other than the award winning hyperZionist zealot, Douglas "clean break" Feith, the man who had advised Likud icon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in 1996 and tear up the Oslo "peace process ". Feith is a protege of Richard Perle. Feith is on the Advisory Board of JINSA ,. Feith is a face card in the deck of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, headquartered in Jerusalem. The law office he founded in 1986, Feith & Zell, is based in Israel, catering to Jewish-American "??settlers"? on the West Bank. "
https://www.takimag.com/article/the_kissinger_connection/If nothing else, Bob Woodward's last fat book on Iraq, State of Denial, has performed a valuable public service by ejecting the furtive Kissinger from the shadows. Woodward reports that vice president Dick Cheney confided to him (Woodward) in the summer of 2005: "I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and I guess at least once a month, Scooter [Libby] and I sit down with him." [Page 406.] Woodward goes on to state: "The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making the former secretary the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs." https://www.takimag.com/article/the_kissinger_connection/Mustapha Mond , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMT
We know who did what ,when and how .Regarding Madeleine Albright: "She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S. imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists."Meena , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 3:20 am GMT
I think 'liberal interventionist' is a bit too weak for the 'lovely' Ms Albright and her (in)famous quote.
Instead, let's try, "That is the basic credo of psychopathically sadistic zionist monsters who exquisitely enjoy the thought of Arab children dying agonizingly slow deaths of preventable diseases and starvation."
Ah, yes. That's a much more accurate assessment of the situation ..Nixon is recorded as saying, "Any settlement will have to be imposed by both the US and the Soviet Union". Yet, as he had told the Russian ambassador to Washington, "I don't want to anger the American Jews who hold important positions in the press, radio and television".
The Jewish lobby has enormous influence on Congress. Nixon wanted to wait until he had won his reelection and concluded the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam and then he could face down the Jewish lobby. Later he told the ambassador, "I will deliver the Israelis".
In one of his final acts in office, he ordered a complete cutoff of assistance to Israel. It was not to be.
Watergate consumed his presidency. https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/21/a-machiavellian-us-in-the-middle-east/
Was this Watergate a payback? Carter lost. So did Bush Sr and Kennedys died .
May 23, 2020 | www.unz.com
Mustapha Mond , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMTRegarding Madeleine Albright: "She also said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S. imposed sanctions was " a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." That is the basic credo of the liberal interventionists."Emily , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 11:47 am GMT
I think 'liberal interventionist' is a bit too weak for the 'lovely' Ms Albright and her (in)famous quote.
Instead, let's try, "That is the basic credo of psychopathically sadistic zionist monsters who exquisitely enjoy the thought of Arab children dying agonizingly slow deaths of preventable diseases and starvation."
Ah, yes. That's a much more accurate assessment of the situation ..@04398436986 Video of Madeleine Albright confirming that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was a price worth paying .
May 23, 2020 | www.unz.com
Realist , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 12: 22 pm GMTRealist , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 12:27 pm GMT
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United States can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes, exceptional.
That is correct and that is because it works the majority of Americans are stupid.
Do you see a solution suggested here?Realist , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMT
It is also an unfortunate indication that the neoconservatives, pronounced dead after the election of Trump, are back and resuming their drive to obtain the positions of power that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
The neocons never went anywhere. Trump is a minion of the Deep State and staffs his administration accordingly.@BLHiram of Tyre , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 1:19 pm GMT
My point is simple and ineluctable, whatever our demerits, our great republic is supposed to weed out psychopaths like Brennan long before they get as close as he has to destroying the whole shebang.
Never happens all administrations are full of psychopaths.Frankly nothing new. Every Empire sought to rule the world and committed a long list of atrocities in the process. "The empire on which the sun never sets", in reference to the British Empire (the one currently still ruling the world), comes from Xerxes' "We shall extend the Persian territory as far as God's heaven reaches. The sun will then shine on no land beyond our borders." as he invaded Greece.
That said, a word on the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski Doctrine and their Pentagon world map would be on point here
May 23, 2020 | www.rt.comA US judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation, demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."
In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its "payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding coming from the Herring family.
In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free speech.
Siding with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h
The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast, the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and "exaggeration" of the said article.
While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.
- Maddow won a lawsuit brought against her because the Judge found her show was "opinion," that is, her show isn't one that shares actual facts with viewers.https://t.co/T1bgdSfc0P — Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 22, 2020Q
- Just like Alex Jones’ defense in his divorce and custody proceedings: “I’m an entertainer”
- Biden’s binder full of women (@Wallflowerface) May 22, 2020Q
- So if she makes any statement(s) on air about being factual, then don’t we have an excellent appeal? — Mortimer Cinder Block (@LeonardPGoldst1) May 22, 2020Q
May 22, 2020 | www.unz.com
Nikolai Vladivostok , says: Website Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 6:21 am GMTI've long since concluded, there is no president who can withdraw the US from the Forever Wars. Obama couldn't. Trump can't. Biden/Harris/Oprah/Gabbard/Pence won't.Anon  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 6:36 am GMT
There are a half-dozen permanent US policies that Americans don't get to vote on, and the Permawar is one of them.My God, Buchanan, I am staggered by the arrogance of this column. Where in the name of all that's holy did you ever get the idea that America has the right to impose on anyone, from Afghans through to Venezuelans, your (perceived) systems of thought, values and democracy? How many American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan can even speak the local language? Understand the local customs? None!!! They swan around in their sunglasses and battle gear thinking that they are they return of the Terminator and wander why the locals absolutely hate their collective guts! It's time that you collectively learned that America is NOT the world's sheriff and that, as Benjamin Franklin said "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".animalogic , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 7:00 am GMTPat is not entirely wrong -- he hints at the explanation for failure:swamped , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 8:14 am GMT
"As imperialists, we Americans are conspicuous failures.
Moreover, with us, the national interest inevitably asserts itself."
As Imperialists there has never been anything but the (Elite) "national interest".
In short, these so called "losing" wars have been wars of aggression -- ie "bad" wars. All Pat's talk of conversion, democracy etc is just so much nonsense."While we can defeat our enemies in the air and on the seas and in cyberspace, we cannot persuade them to embrace secular democracy and its values any more than we can convert them to Christianity" although they might be better persuaded to convert to Christianity – traditional Christianity – than to embrace secular democracy and its "values".Donald Duck , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 10:07 am GMT
Why would anyone want to embrace homosexuality, transgenderism, rad-feminism, opioids, prozac, inequality, broken homes, mass shootings, mountainous debt, corrupt media, puppet politicians & the rest of the filth & perversion that passes for "values" in secular democracies like America or Western Europe?
Indeed, why would anyone in these decadent countries even want to defend these venal "values", let alone try to spread them around the world like the Chinese plague?
No, "they are not trying to change us" but maybe they should.As the British and French ultimately found out it costs more to run an empire than to loot it. So the long retreat ensues. One would have thought that the Americans might have learned this from history, but no! After all they were "the exceptional people, they stood taller than the others and saw further." Errrm, no they didn't. Like their forbears they got bogged down as well getting into debt which was only bailed out by their insistence that they would not convert the dollar into gold.paranoid goy , says: Website Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 12:30 pm GMT
Human nature and stupidity has got a long track-record and it isn't going to end anytime soon.The writer, and most commenters' are still under the erroneous belief that AMerica goes to war in places then AMerica wins or loses or wastes lives or kill children. This is the saddest part of the Yankee war machine: Americans joining the Army because they think theya re joining the fight to defend the American Dream.Realist , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 1:26 pm GMT
You-all are corporate gunmonkeys, fighting and killing and burning and bombing, not in the name of freedom or apple pie, but in the name of Gulf Oil, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JPMorgan, Monsanto, PHBBillington, whatever Devil Rumsfeld calls his sack of shit these days .
America has not won any war anywhere, even their civil war was mostly just clearing the land for the banks. That is because it is not America at war, she just supplies the cannon fodder. And cannons. And radiactive scrapmetal to make bullets to mow down women and children in the name of Investor Confidence.
But then, that is what your Zionist bible tells you to do, isn't it?Realist , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT
What Does Winning Mean in a Forever War?
Winning a war is not in the interest of the Deep State. Being at war makes the Deep State more wealthy and powerful not winning at war.@Anonanonymous  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 1:49 pm GMT
I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."
If by the US you mean most of the people you may be right. But the people in the US have no say in the actions of the US government which is controlled by psychopaths.Afghanistan is hardly even a country as the average American might define one. There's really nothing to "win"; we only occupy. The infrastructure is primitive so it's not cost effective to try to take whatever natural resources they may have, if any, so there's nothing they have that we want. The Taliban were not "ousted". In the face of massive firepower they split up and scattered; they're still there. After all, the US has been negotiating with them for a peace deal of some sort hasn't it? "Democracy crusades" is just a propaganda fig leaf to bamboozle stupid Americans. It's amazing that there's people who actually believe stuff like that but PT Barnum had it right. "Eventually, we give up and go home". That's because they live there and we don't. "They apparently have an inexhaustible supply of volunteers" willing to fight and die. They don't want foreign robo-soldiers pointing guns at them in their own country. We have our own version, it's called "Remember the Alamo", men who stood their ground against the odds.Amerimutt Golems , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 2:03 pm GMT@AnonRurik , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 3:04 pm GMT
If a country is not willing to do that, and I would hope the United States is not willing to do that, then they (we) should go home and leave the Afghans to murder each other without our assistance. If they return to supporting terrorism or go whole hog in producing opium, perhaps the US should decapitate their entire government and let the next batch of losers give governing a try. I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."
The growth in opium cultivation correlates with CIA activities in the area and the $3 billion from American taxpayers which financed Mujahideen 'terrorism' against the Russians and their local proxies just to avenge the fall of Saigon.
In 1980 Afghanistan accounted for about only 5% of total world heroin production. This was mainly for the local market and neighbor Iran.
That is how you get forever wars.follyofwar , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 3:42 pm GMT
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not ours.
If I may..
another way of looking at this, and I feel a profound respect for the Afghans, and only wish we were made of the same mettle. If only ((they)) could say of us..
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not (((ours)))).
They are not trying to change ((((us. We))) are trying to change them. And they wish to remain who they are.
IOW, we white Westerners, have proved willing to surrender and submit to all of it. Without nary a peep of protest. Even as ((they)) send us around the globe to kill people like these Afghans, for being slightly inconvenient to their agenda. [And so the CIA can reconstitute its global heroin trafficking operation$.]
If only history would look back on this epic moment, at the last Death throes of the West, and say of whitey, that he refused to surrender his values and faith and traditions and tribe and God, and culture and civilization and honor.. to ((those)) who would pervert his values, and mock his faith, and trash his traditions, and exterminate his tribe, while mocking his God, and poisoning his culture, and destroying his civilization and all because at the end of the day, he had no honor.
These men may be backwater, illiterate villagers,
but at least they have enough mettle and honor, to tell the Beast that they would rather die killing as many of the Beast's stupid goons as they're able, than ever sacrifice their sacred honor- or lands or sovereignty, or the destinies of their children – over to the fiend, which is more than I can say for Western "man".
They are not trying to change us. We are trying to change them. And they wish to remain who they are.
Would that the Swedish people had a Nano-shred of the blood-honor of an Afghan, Barbara Spectre would be pounding sand.
Historically, the Afghans are fundamentalist, tribal and impervious to foreign intervention.
Obviously, there is a great deal we need to learn from them.
What will the Taliban do when we leave?
They will not give up their dream of again ruling the Afghan nation and people. And they will fight until they have achieved that goal and their idea of victory: dominance.
Um.. Pat. Whose land is it anyways? Is it such a horror that Afghans should be dominant in Afghanistan ?
The Taliban was welcomed into most of the regions it governed, because they drove out local war lords who often treated the villager's children as their sex toys, and the foreign (CIA) opioid growers and traffickers. And it was the Taliban that put an end to all of that. They're harsh, but they're effective, and that is their land, not ours.
Also, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden, if the West could provide a shred of proof that he had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. (he didn't ; ) But the West had zero proof, (as the FBI admits to this day), that they have zero proof that ties Bin Laden to 9/11.
And n0w that we all know 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, intended to use the American military as their bitch, to burn down 'seven nations in five years' .. that the Jewish supremacists wanted destroyed, our whole pretext for being over there has been a sham from day one. Duh.
I remember long ago when I had a subscription to National Geographic and this photo came out, I cut the picture out, and stuck it somewhere to look at- it was so visceral and haunting.
Leave them alone. I don't care how many Jews at the WSJ demand whitey has to stay and die for Israel. (Afghanistan is on Iran's border, and that's why we have to stay, to menace all those anti-Semites over there, trying to gas all the Jews and make soap).
Good on Trump for calling out the ((WSJ)).@paranoid goy I very much doubt if many are joining the military to "defend the American Dream." Most are more practical and are joining to escape poverty, even if it might cost them their lives. Recruiters will now be inundated with volunteers since there are no jobs in the covid depression.Exile , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 4:15 pm GMTIf the neo-con clown car Trump has permitted to run foreign policy since his election gets us into a war with Iran and/or Venezuela before November, will Pat still be stumping for him, or will we see the return of non-election-year Pat?VinnyVette , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 4:46 pm GMTExcellent question Pat! Unfortunately there is no answer, we've been at "forever war" seemingly forever, and the whole point as Eisenhower so preciently warned us is THE objective.Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 5:36 pm GMTIt's not 'forever war'. It is Empire. Empire exists to continue and expand. War is about win or lose. Empire is about keep and dominate.Marshal Marlow , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 1:56 am GMT
US wars are not to win and then depart. It is to keep occupying and controlling.
And US is rich enough to buy off the local elites as collaborators forever.@Anon
If they return to supporting terrorism
The thing is that the Afghan government wasn't supporting terrorism. Rather, it had no on-going control anywhere except the cities, which made the tribal areas useful hideouts / bases for a raft of groups.
I well remember the prelude to the invasion where the US was demanding that its government (which merely happened to be Taliban that year) hand over OBL in 72hrs. The truth was that the US knew Afghanistan didn't have the capability to do that and it merely wanted to use OBL as an excuse to invade and continue the encirclement of the old soviet states.
May 22, 2020 | original.antiwar.com
Before Russiagate, the former national security advisor was an operative for Turkey, tilting foreign policy against the Kurds.by Reese Erlich Posted on May 22, 2020 May 21, 2020 Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is best known for his connection to the Russiagate investigation. Lost in that hubbub, however, was Flynn's slimy role as a lobbyist for Turkey. A Turkish businessman paid Flynn $530,000 in 2016 to push pro-Turkey, anti-Kurd policies in hopes of influencing the Trump Administration.
The American public has mostly forgotten about Flynn's Turkey connections, says Steven A. Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C.
"There's more going on with Turkey than people may realize," Cook tells me.
Flynn's money-driven opportunism is just one example of the operations of Washington's foreign policy lobbyists. As a candidate, Donald Trump correctly criticized the Washington swamp, but as President, instead of draining it, he has shoveled in more muck.
I've dipped my toe into the swamp on occasion by attending conferences and press events populated by Washington's elite. I've rubbed elbows with the likes of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Believe me, these folks are just as evil in person as they appear on TV.
Washington swamp creatures are easily identified by their black pinstriped suits, wingtip oxfords, and red power ties. Two kinds of people attend these events: those in power and those hoping to seize it.
Washington is crawling with former diplomats, intelligence officers, and business executives eager to influence policy and make a buck. And so enters former army Lieutenant General Michael Thomas Flynn, poster boy for the military-industrial complex.
Flynn's checkered past
Flynn, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, came to Washington during the Obama Administration as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was forced to resign for insubordination in 2014, whereupon he joined the Washington swamp by forming the Flynn Intel Group.
In 2016, Flynn hitched his wagon to candidate Donald Trump, giving a fiery speech at the Republican National Convention in which he echoed the call to "lock up" Hillary Clinton for her handling of State Department emails.
Behind the scenes, however, Flynn was engaged in offenses for which he could be locked up. The Flynn Intel Group signed a contract totaling $600,000 with a Turkish businessman who had close ties to authoritarian Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Erdoğan wanted Washington to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a political opponent living in Pennsylvania since 1999. Gulen is a rival political Islamist who had a falling out with Erdogan. The Turkish president accuses Gulen of organizing the unsuccessful July 2016 coup. At the time Flynn spoke favorably about the military trying to overthrow Erdogan. He also criticized Turkey for allowing terrorists to cross the border into Syria.
But after receiving the contract to help Turkey, he did a 180-degree turn and supported Erdogan's policies.
"Flynn believes whatever is good for Flynn is good for America," Kani Xulam, director of the American Kurdish Information Network, tells me. "The minute they put money in his bank account, he became pro-Turkey. That was the shocking part."
In September 2016, Flynn arranged a meeting between former US officials and Turkish leaders, including the country's foreign minister, energy minister, and Erdogan's son-in-law.
Participants at the meeting talked about kidnapping Gulen and bringing him to Turkey. Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey, who attended the meeting, said they discussed "a covert step in the dead of night to whisk this guy away."
In December, Flynn wrote an op-ed for the influential Washington publication The Hill in which he compared Gulen to both Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini. According to analyst Cook, the op-ed could have been written in Ankara: "It was all Turkey's talking points."
Flynn didn't bother to tell The Hill editors that he was a paid lobbyist for Turkey.
Flynn became part of Trump's transition team after November 2016, and he used the position to push anti-Kurdish policies. At that time, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces were on the verge of taking control of the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqa, Syria. He told the Obama Administration not to provide arms to the SDF and implemented that policy when Trump came to power in 2017.
But Flynn's stint as National Security Advisor lasted for only three weeks. He was forced to resign after revelations of his phone call to the Russian ambassador. In March, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.
In 2019, a federal jury convicted Flynn's business associate, Bijan Kian, on two felonies: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws and failure to register as a foreign agent for Turkey. Flynn was scheduled to testify against Kian but changed his story at the last minute, causing problems for the prosecution. The judge later tossed the verdict, saying the prosecution didn't prove its case.
As part of an overall deal with federal prosecutors, Flynn was never charged in connection with his lobbying for Turkey. It seems unlikely that he ever will.
Flynn's activities are just one example of the corrupt world of foreign lobbying. Recently, The New York Times exposed how defense contractor Raytheon pressured the Trump Administration to sell sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia, which were then used to slaughter civilians in Yemen.
The Yemen war, which began in 2015, has killed an estimated 100,000 people and displaced 80 percent of the population. Saudi air bombardment of hospitals, schools, and other civilian targets helped create one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have profited handsomely from the slaughter.
Until recently, Raytheon's vice president for government relations was a former career army officer named Mark Esper. Today Esper is Secretary of Defense.
Crawling into bed with lobbyists is bipartisan activity. The Obama Administration sold $10 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and its allies. Trump has openly boasted that US arms sales provide corporate profits and jobs at home.
"Trump has been more forthcoming praising US relations with Saudis because they want to buy more weapons," Kurdish activist Xulam tells me. "He doesn't care what Saudis do with the weapons."
Analyst Cook says the entire system of foreign lobbying needs major reform. "It's a scandal that needs to be cleaned up," he says. "It's legalized foreign influence peddling."
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ; and visit his webpage .
May 22, 2020 | consortiumnews.com
Herman , May 17, 2020 at 09:00
Interesting comparison between the aspirations of De Gaulle and Putin.
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history that was past. His policy was to foster friendly relations on equal terms with all parts of the world, regardless of ideological differences. I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar. It is clearly a concept that horrifies the exceptionalists."
Agree with Johnstone.
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:55
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history that was past. "
Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest.
The exceptions to such strategies lay within constructs of settler colonialism which were addressed primarily through warfare – "The United States of America", Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola refer – to facilitate such future strategies.
"I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar."
As outlined elsewhere the concept of a multi-polar world is not synonymous with the concept of colonialism except for the colonialists who consistently seek to encourage such conflation through myths of we-are-all-in-this-togetherness.
May 21, 2020 | consortiumnews.com
In France, confinement has been generally well accepted as necessary, but that does not mean people are content with the government -- on the contrary. Every evening at eight, people go to their windows to cheer for health workers and others doing essential tasks, but the applause is not for President Macron.
Macron and his government are criticized for hesitating too long to confine the population, for vacillating about the need for masks and tests, or about when or how much to end the confinement. Their confusion and indecision at least defend them from the wild accusation of having staged the whole thing in order to lock up the population.
What we have witnessed is the failure of what used to be one of the very best public health services in the world. It has been degraded by years of cost-cutting. In recent years, the number of hospital beds per capita has declined steadily. Many hospitals have been shut down and those that remain are drastically understaffed. Public hospital facilities have been reduced to a state of perpetual saturation, so that when a new epidemic comes along, on top of all the other usual illnesses, there is simply not the capacity to deal with it all at once.
The neoliberal globalization myth fostered the delusion that advanced Western societies could prosper from their superior brains, thanks to ideas and computer startups, while the dirty work of actually making things is left to low-wage countries. One result: a drastic shortage of face masks. The government let a factory that produced masks and other surgical equipment be sold off and shut down. Having outsourced its textile industry, France had no immediate way to produce the masks it needed.
Meanwhile, in early April, Vietnam donated hundreds of thousands of antimicrobial face masks to European countries and is producing them by the million. Employing tests and selective isolation, Vietnam has fought off the epidemic with only a few hundred cases and no deaths.
You must have thoughts as to the question of Western unity in response to Covid–19.
In late March, French media reported that a large stock of masks ordered and paid for by the southeastern region of France was virtually hijacked on the tarmac of a Chinese airport by Americans, who tripled the price and had the cargo flown to the United States. There are also reports of Polish and Czech airport authorities intercepting Chinese or Russian shipments of masks intended for hard-hit Italy and keeping them for their own use.
The absence of European solidarity has been shockingly clear. Better-equipped Germany banned exports of masks to Italy. In the depth of its crisis, Italy found that the German and Dutch governments were mainly concerned with making sure Italy pays its debts. Meanwhile, a team of Chinese experts arrived in Rome to help Italy with its Covid–19 crisis, displaying a banner reading "We are waves of the same sea, leaves of the same tree, flowers of the same garden." The European institutions lack such humanistic poetry. Their founding value is not solidarity but the neoliberal principle of "free unimpeded competition."
How do you think this reflects on the European Union?
The Covid–19 crisis makes it just that much clearer that the European Union is no more than a complex economic arrangement, with neither the sentiment nor the popular leaders that hold together a nation. For a generation, schools, media, politicians have instilled the belief that the "nation" is an obsolete entity. But in a crisis, people find that they are in France, or Germany, or Italy, or Belgium -- but not in "Europe." The European Union is structured to care about trade, investment, competition, debt, economic growth. Public health is merely an economic indicator. For decades, the European Commission has put irresistible pressure on nations to reduce the costs of their public health facilities in order to open competition for contracts to the private sector -- which is international by nature.
Globalization has hastened the spread of the pandemic, but it has not strengthened internationalist solidarity. Initial gratitude for Chinese aid is being brutally opposed by European Atlanticists. In early May, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the Springer publishing giant, bluntly called on Germany to ally with the U.S. -- against China. Scapegoating China may seem the way to try to hold the declining Western world together, even as Europeans' long-standing admiration for America turns to dismay.
Meanwhile, relations between EU member states have never been worse. In Italy and to a greater extent in France, the coronavirus crisis has enforced growing disillusion with the European Union and an ill-defined desire to restore national sovereignty.
Corollary question: What are the prospects that Europe will produce leaders capable of seizing that right moment, that assertion of independence? What do you reckon such leaders would be like?
The EU is likely to be a central issue in the near future, but this issue can be exploited in very different ways, depending on which leaders get hold of it. The coronavirus crisis has intensified the centrifugal forces already undermining the European Union. The countries that have suffered most from the epidemic are among the most indebted of the EU member states, starting with Italy. The economic damage from the lockdown obliges them to borrow further. As their debt increases, so do interest rates charged by commercial banks. They turned to the EU for help, for instance by issuing eurobonds that would share the debt at lower interest rates. This has increased tension between debtor countries in the south and creditor countries in the north, which said nein . Countries in the eurozone cannot borrow from the European Central Bank as the U.S. Treasury borrows from the Fed. And their own national central banks take orders from the ECB, which controls the euro.
What does the crisis mean for the euro? I confess I've lost faith in this project, given how disadvantaged it leaves the nations on the Continent's southern rim.
The great irony is that "a common currency" was conceived by its sponsors as the key to European unity. On the contrary, the euro has a polarizing effect -- with Greece at the bottom and Germany at the top. And Italy sinking. But Italy is much bigger than Greece and won't go quietly.
The German constitutional court in Karlsruhe recently issued a long judgment making it clear who is boss. It recalled and insisted that Germany agreed to the euro only on the grounds that the main mission of the European Central Bank was to fight inflation, and that it could not directly finance member states. If these rules were not followed, the Bundesbank, the German central bank, would be obliged to pull out of the ECB. And since the Bundesbank is the ECB's main creditor, that is that. There can be no generous financial help to troubled governments within the eurozone. Period.
Is there a possibility of disintegration here?
The idea of leaving the EU is most developed in France. The Union Populaire Républicaine, founded in 2007 by former senior functionary François Asselineau, calls for France to leave the euro, the European Union, and NATO.
The party has been a didactic success, spreading its ideas and attracting around 20,000 active militants without scoring any electoral success. A main argument for leaving the EU is to escape from the constraints of EU competition rules in order to protect its vital industry, agriculture, and above all its public services.
A major paradox is that the left and the Yellow Vests call for economic and social policies that are impossible under EU rules, and yet many on the left shy away from even thinking of leaving the EU. For over a generation, the French left has made an imaginary "social Europe" the center of its utopian ambitions.
" Europe" as an idea or an ideal, you mean.
Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European Union faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step toward fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis which weakens the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic.
Two and a half months of coronavirus crisis have brought to light a factor that makes any predictions about future leaders even more problematic. That factor is a widespread distrust and rejection of all established authority. This makes rational political programs extremely difficult, because rejection of one authority implies acceptance of another. For instance, the way to liberate public services and pharmaceuticals from the distortions of the profit motive is nationalization. If you distrust the power of one as much as the other, there is nowhere to go.
Such radical distrust can be explained by two main factors -- the inevitable feeling of helplessness in our technologically advanced world, combined with the deliberate and even transparent lies on the part of mainstream politicians and media. But it sets the stage for the emergence of manipulated saviors or opportunistic charlatans every bit as deceptive as the leaders we already have, or even more so. I hope these irrational tendencies are less pronounced in France than in some other countries.
I'm eager to talk about Russia. There are signs that relations with Russia are another source of European dissatisfaction as "junior partners" within the U.S.–led Atlantic alliance. Macron is outspoken on this point, "junior partners" being his phrase. The Germans -- business people, some senior officials in government -- are quite plainly restive.
Russia is a living part of European history and culture. Its exclusion is totally unnatural and artificial. Brzezinski [the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration's national security adviser] spelled it out in The Great Chessboard : The U.S. maintains world hegemony by keeping the Eurasian landmass divided.
But this policy can be seen to be inherited from the British. It was Churchill who proclaimed -- in fact welcomed -- the Iron Curtain that kept continental Europe divided. In retrospect, the Cold War was basically part of the divide-and-rule strategy, since it persists with greater intensity than ever after its ostensible cause -- the Communist threat -- is long gone.
I hadn't put our current circumstance in this context. US-backed, violent coup in Ukraine, 2014.
The whole Ukrainian operation of 2014 [the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kyiv, February 2014] was lavishly financed and stimulated by the United States in order to create a new conflict with Russia. Joe Biden has been the Deep State's main front man in turning Ukraine into an American satellite, used as a battering ram to weaken Russia and destroy its natural trade and cultural relations with Western Europe.
U.S. sanctions are particularly contrary to German business interests, and NATO's aggressive gestures put Germany on the front lines of an eventual war.
But Germany has been an occupied country -- militarily and politically -- for 75 years, and I suspect that many German political leaders (usually vetted by Washington) have learned to fit their projects into U.S. policies. I think that under the cover of Atlantic loyalty, there are some frustrated imperialists lurking in the German establishment, who think they can use Washington's Russophobia as an instrument to make a comeback as a world military power.
But I also think that the political debate in Germany is overwhelmingly hypocritical, with concrete aims veiled by fake issues such as human rights and, of course, devotion to Israel.
We should remember that the U.S. does not merely use its allies -- its allies, or rather their leaders, figure they are using the U.S. for some purposes of their own.
What about what the French have been saying since the G–7 session in Biarritz two years ago, that Europe should forge its own relations with Russia according to Europe's interests, not America's?
At G7 Summit in Biarritz, France, Aug. 26, 2019. (White House)
I think France is likelier than Germany to break with the U.S.–imposed Russophobia simply because, thanks to de Gaulle, France is not quite as thoroughly under U.S. occupation. Moreover, friendship with Russia is a traditional French balance against German domination -- which is currently being felt and resented.
Stepping back for a broader look, do you think Europe's position on the western flank of the Eurasian landmass will inevitably shape its position with regard not only to Russia but also China? To put this another way, is Europe destined to become an independent pole of power in the course of this century, standing between West and East?
At present, what we have standing between West and East is not Europe but Russia, and what matters is which way Russia leans. Including Russia, Europe might become an independent pole of power. The U.S. is currently doing everything to prevent this. But there is a school of strategic thought in Washington which considers this a mistake, because it pushes Russia into the arms of China. This school is in the ascendant with the campaign to denounce China as responsible for the pandemic. As mentioned, the Atlanticists in Europe are leaping into the anti–China propaganda battle. But they are not displaying any particular affection for Russia, which shows no sign of sacrificing its partnership with China for the unreliable Europeans.
If Russia were allowed to become a friendly bridge between China and Europe, the U.S. would be obliged to abandon its pretensions of world hegemony. But we are far from that peaceful prospect.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via his Patreon site .
Josep , May 19, 2020 at 02:04
It recalled and insisted that Germany agreed to the euro only on the grounds that the main mission of the European Central Bank was to fight inflation, and that it could not directly finance member states.
I once read a comment elsewhere saying that, back in 1989, both Britain (under Margaret Thatcher) and the US objected to German reunification. Since they could not stop the reunification, they insisted that Germany accept the incoming euro. A heap of German university professors jumped up and protested, knowing fully well what the game was: namely the creation of a banker's empire in Europe controlled by private bankers.
Thorben Sunkimat , May 20, 2020 at 13:45
France and Britain rejected the german reunification. The americans were supportive, even though they had their demands. Mainly privatisation of german public utilities. After agreeing to those demands the americans persuaded the british and pressured the french who agreed to german reunification after germany agreed to the euro.
So why did france want the euro?
The German central bank crashed the European economy after reunification with high interest rates. This was because of above average growth rates mainly in Eastern Germany. Main function of the Bundesbank is to keep inflation low, which is more important to them than anything else. Since Germany's D Mark was the leading currency in Europe the rest of Europe had to heighten their interest rates too, witch lead to great economic problems within Europe. Including France.
OlyaPola , May 21, 2020 at 05:30
"namely the creation of a banker's empire in Europe controlled by private bankers."
Resort to binaries (controlled/not controlled) is a practice of self-imposed blindness. In any interactive system no absolutes exist only analogues of varying assays since "control" is limited and variable. In respect of what became the German Empire this relationship predated and facilitated the German Empire through financing the war with Denmark in 1864 courtesy of the arrangements between Mr. von Bismark and Mr. Bleichroder. The assay of "control of bankers" has varied/increased subsequently but never attained the absolute.
It is true that finance capital perceived and continues to perceive the European Union as an opportunity to increase their assay of "control" – the Austrian banks in conjunction with German bank assigning a level of priority to resurrecting spheres of influence existing prior to 1918 and until 1945.
One of the joint projects at a level of planning in the early 1990's was development of the Danube and its hinterland from Regensburg to Cerna Voda/Constanta in Romania but this was delayed in the hope of curtailment by some when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 (Serbia not being the only target – so much for honesty-amongst-theives.)
This project was resurrected in a limited form primarily downstream from Vidin/Calafat from 2015 onwards given that some states of the former Yugoslavia were not members of the European Union and some were within spheres of influence of "The United States of America".
As to France, "Vichy" and Europa also facilitated the resurrection of finance capital and increase in its assay of control after the 1930's, some of the practices of the 1940's still being subject to dispute in France.
mkb29 , May 18, 2020 at 16:33
I've always admired Diana Johnstone's clear headed analyses of world/European/U.S./ China/Israel-Palestine/Russia/ interactions and the motivation of its "players". She has given some credence to what as been known as French rationalism and enlightenment. (Albeit as an American expat) Think Descartes, Diderot, Sartre , and She loves France in her own rationalist-humanist way.
Linda J , May 18, 2020 at 13:21
I have admired Ms. Johnstone's work for quite awhile. This enlightening interview spurs me to get a copy of the book and to contribute to Consortium News.
Others may be interested in the two-part video discovered yesterday featuring Douglas Valentine's analysis of the CIA's corporate backers and their global choke-hold on governments and their influencers in every region of the world.
worldblee , May 18, 2020 at 12:26
Not many have the long distance perspective on the world, let alone Europe, that Diana Johnstone has. Great interview!
Drew Hunkins , May 18, 2020 at 11:03
"Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European Union faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step toward fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis which weakens the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic."
Bingo! A marvelous point indeed! Quick little example -- Bernard Sanders should have worn an American flag pin on his suit during the 2020 Dem primary campaign.
chris , May 18, 2020 at 04:46
A very good analysis. As an American who has relocated to Spain several years ago, I am always disappointed that discussions of European politics always assume that Europe ends at the Pyrenees. Admittedly, Spanish politics is very complicated and confusing. Forty years of an unreconstructed dictatorship have left their mark, but the country´s socialist, communist and anarchic currents never went away. I like to say that the country is very conservative, but at least the population is aware of what is going on.
Perhaps what Ms. Johnston says about the French being just worn out, with no stomach for more violent conflict also applies to the Spanish since their great ideological struggle is more recent. The American influence during the Transition (which changed little – as the expression goes: The same dog but with a different collar) was very strong, and remains so. Even so, there is popular support for foreign and domestic policies independent of American and neoliberal control, but by and large the political and economic powers are not on board. I do not think Spain is willing to make a break alone, but would align itself with an European shift away from American control.
As Ms. Johnston says, Europe currently lacks leaders willing to take the plunge, but we will see what the coming year brings.
Sam F , May 17, 2020 at 17:45
Thank you Diana, these are valuable insights. Since WWII the US has itself been occupied by tyrants, using Russophobia to demand power as fake defenders.
1. Waving the flag and praising the lord on mass media, claiming concern with human rights and "Israel"; while
2. Subverting the Constitution with large scale bribery, surveillance, and genocides, all business as usual nowadays.
In the US, the form of government has become bribery and marketing lies; it truly knows no other way.
It may be better that Russia and China keep their distance from the US and maybe even the EU:
1. The US and EU would have to produce what they consume, eventually empowering workers;
2. Neither the US nor EU are a political or economic model for anyone, and should be ignored;
3. Neither the US nor EU produces much that Russia and China cannot, by investing more in cars and soybeans.
It will be best for the EU if it also rejects the US and its "neolib" economic and political tyranny mechanisms:
1. Alliance with Russia and China will cause substantial gains in stability and economic strength;
2. Forcing the US to abandon its "pretensions of world hegemony" will soon yield more peaceful prospects; and
3. Isolating the US will force it to improve its utterly corrupt government and society, maybe 40 to 60 years hence.
Drew Hunkins , May 17, 2020 at 15:40
" French philosophy .By constantly attacking, deconstructing, and denouncing every remnant of human "power" they could spot, the intellectual rebels left the power of "the markets" unimpeded, and did nothing to stand in the way of the expansion of U.S. military power all around the world "
Brilliant. Exactly right. This was the progenitor to our contemporary I.D. politics which seems to be solely obsessed with vocabulary, semantics and non-economic cultural issues while rarely having a critique of corporate capitalism, militarism, massive inequality and Zionism. And it almost never advocates for robust economic populist proposals like Med4All, U.B.I., debt jubilee, and the fight for $15.
Drew Hunkins , May 17, 2020 at 15:10
The book is phenomenal. I posted a customer review over on Amazon for this stupendous work. Below is a copy of my review:
(5 stars) One of the most important intellects pens her magisterial lasting legacy
Reviewed in the United States on March 31, 2020
Johnstone's been an idol of mine ever since I started reading her in the 1990s. She's clearly proved her worthiness over the decades by bucking the mainstream trend of apologetics for corporate capitalism, neoliberalism, globalism and imperialistic militarism her entire career and this astonishing memoir details it all in what will likely be the finest book of 2020 and perhaps the entire decade.
Her writing style is beyond superb, her grasp of the overarching politico-socio-economic issues that have rocked the world over the past 60 years is as astute and spot-on as you will find from any global thinker. She's right up there with Michael Parenti, James Petras, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky as seminal figures who have documented and brought light to tens of thousands (millions?) of people across the globe via their writings, interviews and speaking engagements.
Johnstone has never been one to shy away from controversial topics and issues. Why? Simple, she has the facts and truth on her side, she always has. Circle in the Darkness proves all this and more, she marshals the documentation and lays it out as an exquisite gift for struggling working people around the world.
From her groundbreaking work on the NATO empire's sickening war on sovereign Serbia, the dead end of identity politics and trans bathroom debates, to her critique of unfettered immigration and open borders, and her dismissal of the absurd Russsiagate baloney, better than anyone else, Johnstone has kept her intellect carefully honed to the real genuine kitchen table bread and butter issues that truly matter. She recognized before most of the world's scholars the perils of rampant inequality and saw the writing on the wall as to where this grotesque economic system is taking us all: down a dystopian slope into penury and police-state heavy-handedness, with millions unable to come up with $500 for an emergency car repair or dental bill.
Whenever she comes out with a new article or essay I immediately drop everything and devour it, often reading it twice to let her wisdom really soak in. So too Circle of Darkness is an extremely well written beautiful work that will scream out to be re-read every few years by those with a hunger to know exactly what was going on since the Korean War era through today regarding liberal thought, neocon and neoliberal dominance with its capitalist global hegemony and the take over of Western governments by the parasitic financial elite.
There will never be another Diana Johnstone. Circle in the Darkness will stand as her lasting legacy to all of us.
Bob Van Noy , May 17, 2020 at 14:43
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it" ~Albert Einstein
Many Thanks CN, Patrick Lawrence, and Joe Lauria. Once again I must commend CN for picking just the appropriate response to our contemporary dilemma.
The quote above leads Diana Johnstone's new book and succinctly describes both the universe and our contemporary experience with our digital age. President Kennedy and Charles de Gaulle of France would agree that colonialism was past and that a new world (geopolitical) approach would become necessary, but that philosophy would put them against some great local and world powers. Each of them necessarily had different approaches as to how this might be accomplished. They were never allowed to present their specific proposals on a world stage. Let's hope a wiser population will once again "see" this possibility and find a way to resolve it
Aaron , May 17, 2020 at 14:18
Well over the span of all of those decades, the consistent, inexorable theme seems to be a trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, a small number of individuals, not really states, gaining wealth and power, so everybody else fights over the crumbs, blaming this or that party, alliance, event or whatever, but behind it all there are two flower gardens, indeed the rich are all flowers of their golden garden, and the poor are all flowers of their garden.
It's like the Europeans and the 99 percent in America have all fallen for the myth of the American dream, that if we are just allowed more free, unfettered economic opportunity, it's just up to us to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps and become a billionaire.
The mask competition and fiasco shows the importance of a country simply making things in their own country, not on the other side of the world, it's not nationalism it's just a better way to logistically deliver reliable products to the citizens.
AnneR , May 17, 2020 at 13:42
Regarding French colonialism – as I recall the French were especially brutal in their forced withdrawal from Algeria, both toward Algerians in their homeland and to Algerians within France itself.
And the French were hardly willing, non-violent colonialists when being fought by the Vietnamese who wanted to be free of them (quite rightly so).
As for the French in Sub-Saharan Africa – they have yet to truly give up on their presumed right to have troops within these countries. They did not depart any of their colonies happily, willingly – like every other colonial power, including the UK.
And, as for WWII – she seems, in her reminiscences, to have mislaid Vichy France, the Velodrome roundups of French Jews, and so on ..
Ms Johnstone clearly has been looking backwards with rose-tinted specs on when it comes to France.
Randal Marlin , May 18, 2020 at 13:00
There may be some truth to AnneR's claim that Ms Johnstone has been looking with rose-tinted specs when it comes to France, but it is highly misleading for her to talk about "the French" regarding Algeria. I spent 1963-64 in Aix-en-Provence teaching at the Institute for American Universities and talked with some of the "pieds-noirs," (French born in Algeria).
After French President Charles de Gaulle decided to relinquish French control over Algeria, having previously reassured the colonial population that "Je vous ai compris" ("I have understood you"), there followed death threats to many French colonizers who had to flee Algeria immediately within 24 hours or get their throats slit – "La valise ou le cercueil" (the suitcase or the coffin).
In the fall of 1961, I saw Parisian police stations with machine-gun armed men behind concrete barriers, as an invasion by the colonial French paratroopers against mainland France was expected. The "Organisation Armée Secrète," OAS, (Secret Armed Organization) of the colonial powers, threatened at the time to invade Paris.
As an aside, giving a sense of the anger and passion involved, when the death of John F.Kennedy in November 1963 was announced in the historic, right-wing café in Aix, Les Deux Garçons, a huge cheer went up when the media announcer proclaimed "Le Président est assassinée. Only, that was because they thought de Gaulle was the president in question. A huge disappointment when they heard it was President Kennedy. To get a sense of the whole situation regarding France and Algeria I recommend Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace."
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:23
"They did not depart any of their colonies happily"
Some hold that they never departed, but mutated tools including CFA zones and "intelligence" relations in furtherance of "changing" to remain qualitatively the same. Just as "The United States of America" is a system of coercive relations not synonymous with the political geographical area designated "The United States of America", the colonialism of former and present "colonial powers" continues to exist, since the "independence" of the colonised was always, and continues to be, framed within linear systems of coercive relations, facilitated by the complicity of "local elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest, and the acquiescence of "local others" for myriad reasons.
Despite the "best" efforts of the opponents and partly in consequence of the opponents' complicity, the PRC and the Russian Federation like "The United States of America" are not synonymous with the political geographical areas designated as "The People's Republic of China and The Russian Federation", are in lateral process of transcending linear systems of coercive relations and hence pose existential threats to "The United States of America".
The opponents are not complete fools but the drowning tend to act precipitously including flailing out whilst drowning; encouraging some to dispense with rose- tinted glasses, despite such accessories being quite fashionable and fetching.
OlyaPola , May 20, 2020 at 04:32
" .. their colonies "
Perception of and practice of social relations are not wholly synonymous. A construct whose founding myths included liberty, egality and fraternity – property being discarded at the last moment since it was judged too provocative – experienced/experiences ideological/perceptual oxymorons in regard to its colonial relations, which were addressed in part by rendering their "colonies" department of France thereby facilitating increased perceptual dissonance.
Like many, Randal Marlin draws attention below to the perceptions and practices of the pied-noir, but omits to address the perceptions and practices of the harkis whom were also immersed in the proselytised notion of departmental France, and to some degree continue to be.
This understanding continues to inform the practices and problems of the French state.
Lolita , May 17, 2020 at 12:05
The analysis is very much inspired from "Comprendre l'Empire" by Alain Soral.
Dave , May 17, 2020 at 11:27
Do not fail to read this interview in its entirety. Ms Johnstone analyzes and describes many issues of national and global importance from the perspective of an USA expat who has spent most of her career in the pursuit of what may be termed disinterested journalism. Whether one agrees or disagrees in whole or in part the perspectives she presents, particularly those which pertain to the demise (hopefully) of the American Empire are worthy of perusal.
Remember that this is not a polemic; it's a memoir of a lifetime devoted to reporting and analyzing and discussion of most of the significant issues confronting global and national politics and their social ramifications. And a big thanks to Patrick Lawrence and Consortium News for posting the interview.
PEG , May 17, 2020 at 09:11
Diana Johnstone is one of the most intelligent, clear-minded and honest observers of international politics today, and her book "Circle in the Darkness" – which expands on the topics and insights touched on in this interview – is certainly among the best and most compelling books I have ever read, putting the events of the last 75 years into objective context and focus (normally something which only historians can do, if at all, generations after the fact).
After reading Circle in the Darkness, I have ordered and am now reading her books on Hillary Clinton (Queen of Chaos) and the Yugoslav wars (Fool's Crusade), which are very worthwhile and important. I would recommend that her many articles over the years, appearing in such publications such as In These Times, Counterpunch and Consortium News, be reprinted and published together as an anthology. Through Circle in the Darkness, we have Diana Johnstone's "Life", but it would be good also to have her "Letters".
Herman , May 17, 2020 at 09:00
Interesting comparison between the aspirations of De Gaulle and Putin.
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history that was past. His policy was to foster friendly relations on equal terms with all parts of the world, regardless of ideological differences. I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar. It is clearly a concept that horrifies the exceptionalists."
Agree with Johnstone.
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:55
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history that was past. "
Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest.
The exceptions to such strategies lay within constructs of settler colonialism which were addressed primarily through warfare – "The United States of America", Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola refer – to facilitate such future strategies.
"I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar."
As outlined elsewhere the concept of a multi-polar world is not synonymous with the concept of colonialism except for the colonialists who consistently seek to encourage such conflation through myths of we-are-all-in-this-togetherness.
May 21, 2020 | www.unz.com
says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 8:59 pm GMT 100 Words @Phaeton I pushed the agree button for you.
Here is a link that is more fair to what fascism is.
We have a plutocracy which is in bed with corporations, including finance corporations. Our totalitarianism is not fascism.
Fascism arose to fight finance capital. It was the third way between communism and finance capitalism.
People keep bandying the word fascism around because it was changed in meaning post ww2 something like conspiracy after JFK was murdered. The meaning was changed to have a negative reaction in our brains.
Conspiracy is merely people getting together to hatch a plot, or scheme. Fascism was the putting of the polity over capital.
May 21, 2020 | www.unz.com
My columns haven't been very funny recently. This one isn't going to be any funnier. Sorry. Fascism makes me cranky.
I don't mean the kind of fascism the corporate media and the fake Resistance have been desperately hyping for the last four years. God help me, but I'm not terribly worried about a few hundred white-supremacist morons marching around with tiki torches hollering Nazi slogans at each other, or Jewish-Mexican-American law clerks flashing "OK" signs on TV, or smirking schoolkids in MAGA hats.
I'm talking about actual, bona fide fascism, or totalitarianism, if you want to get technical. The kind where governments declare a global "state of emergency" on account of a virus with a 0.2% to 0.6% lethality (and that causes mild, flu-like symptoms, or absolutely no symptoms whatsoever, in over 97% of those infected ), locks everyone down inside their homes, suspends their constitutional rights, terrorizes them with propaganda, and unleashes uniformed goon squads on anyone who doesn't comply with their despotic decrees.
I'm talking about the kind of totalitarianism where the police track you down with your smartphone data and then come to your house to personally harass you for attending a political protest , or attack you for challenging their illegitimate authority , and then charge you with "assault" for fighting back, and then get the media to publish a story accusing you of having "set up" the cops .
I'm talking about the kind of totalitarianism where the secret police are given carte blanche to monitor everyone's Internet activity , and to scan you with their " surveillance helmets ," and dictate how close you can sit to your friends , and menace you with drones and robot dogs , and violently pry your kids out of your arms and arrest you if you dare to protest.
I'm talking about the kind of totalitarianism that psychologically tortures children with authoritarian loyalty rituals designed to condition them to live in fear, and respond to absurd Pavlovian stimuli, and that encourages the masses to turn off their brains and mechanically repeat propaganda slogans, like "wear a mask" and "flatten the curve," and to report their neighbors to the police for having an "illegal" private party and to otherwise reify the manufactured mass hysteria the authorities need to "justify" their totalitarianism.
Yeah, that kind of stuff makes me cranky.
And you know what makes me really cranky? I'll tell you what makes me really cranky. It is people who publicly project themselves as "anti-authoritarians" and "anti-fascists," or who have established their "anti-establishment" brands and "dissident" personas on social media, or even in the corporate media, either zealously cheerleading this totalitarianism or looking away and saying nothing as it is rolled out by the very authorities and media propagandists they pretend to oppose. I don't know exactly why, but that stuff makes me particularly cranky.
I'll provide you with a few examples.
The militant "Portland anti-fascists" who the corporate media fell in love with and made famous for bravely fighting off the Trump-loving Putin-Nazi Menace over the course of the last four years, as soon as the Corona-Totalitarianism began, did what all true anti-fascists do when the state goes full-blown fascist no, they did not "smash the state," or "occupy the streets," or anything like that. They masked-up and started making vegan hand sanitizer .
Popular Internet "anti-imperialists" started accusing everyone opposing the lockdown of being part of some far-right Republican plot to "promote mass death under the banner of freedom" or to "normalize death" to benefit rich people, or being members of a "death cult," or something. Celebrity socialists took to Twitter to warn that we would " shortly have the blood of thousands of people on our hands ," and call us " anti-vaxxers " and " flat earth fucks ." Indie political and military analysts patiently explained why governments needed to be able to pull people out of their homes against their will and quarantine them . Anarchist anthropologists averred that the lockdown wasn't damaging the productive economy; it was only damaging the "bullshit economy," and those complaining about being out of work were people whose work is "largely useless."
Others simply looked away or sat there in silence as we were confined to our homes, and made to carry " permission papers " to walk to work or the corner grocery store, and were beaten and arrested for not "social-distancing," and were otherwise bullied and humiliated for no justifiable reason whatsoever. (We are talking about a virus, after all, that even the official medical experts, e.g., the U.K.'s Chief Medic , admit is more or less harmless to the vast majority of us, not the Bubonic Fucking Plague or some sort of Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu so spare me the "we-had-no-choice-but-to-go-totalitarian" rationalization.)
My intent is not merely to mock these people (i.e., these "radical," "anti-establishment" types who fell into formation and started goose-stepping because the media told them we were all going to die), but also to use them as a clear example of how official narratives are born and take hold.
That's somewhat pertinent at the moment, because the "Brave New Normal" official narrative has been born, but it has not yet taken hold. What happens next will determine whether it does.
In order to understand how this works, imagine for a moment that you're one of these people who are normally skeptical of the government and the media, and that you consider yourself an anti-authoritarian, or at least a friend of the working classes, and now you are beginning to realize that there is no Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu (just as there were no "WMDs," no "Russian hackers," no "pee-tape," etc.), and so it dawns on you that you've been behaving like a hysterical, brainwashed, fascist minion of the very establishment you supposedly oppose or at the very least like an abject coward.
Imagine how you might feel right now.
You would probably feel pretty foolish, right? And more than a little ashamed of yourself. So OK, what would do about that? Well, you would have a couple of options.
Option Number One would be admit what you did, apologize to whomever you have to, and try like hell not to do it again. Not many people are going to choose this option.
Most people are going to choose Option Number Two, which is to desperately try to deny what they did, or to desperately rationalize what they did (and in many cases are still actively doing). Now, this is not as easy at it sounds, because doing that means they will have to continue to believe (or at least pretend to believe) that there is an Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu which is going to kill hundreds of millions of people the moment we stop locking everyone down, and forcing them to "social distance," and so on. They will have to continue to pretend to believe that this Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu exists, even though they know it doesn't.
And this is where that Orwellian "doublethink" comes in. People (i.e., these "anti-authoritarians," not to mention the majority of the "normal" public) are not going to want to face the fact that they've been behaving like a bunch of fascists (or cowards) for no justifiable reason whatsoever. So, what they are going to do instead is desperately pretend that their behavior was justified and that the propaganda they have been swallowing, and regurgitating, was not propaganda, but rather, "the Truth."
In other words, in order to avoid their shame, they are going to do everything in their power to reify the official narrative and delegitimize anyone attempting to expose it as the fiction that it is. They are going to join in with the corporate media that are calling us " extremists ," " conspiracy theorists ," " anti-vaxxers ," and other such epithets. They're going to accuse those of us on the Left of aligning with " far-Right Republican militias ," and " Boogaloo accelerationists ," and of being members of the Russian-backed " Querfront ," and assorted other horrible things meant to scare errant leftists into line.
Above all, they are going to continue to insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary , that we are "under attack" by a "killer virus" which could "strike again at any time," and so we have to maintain at least some level of totalitarianism and paranoia, or else well, you know, the terrorists win.
It is this reification of the official narrative by those too ashamed to admit what they did (and try to determine why they did it), and not the narrative or the propaganda itself, that will eventually establish the "Brave New Normal" as "reality" (assuming the process works as smoothly as it did with the "War on Terror," the "War on Populism," and the "Cold War" narratives). The facts, the data, the "science" won't matter. Reality is consensus reality and a new consensus is being formed at the moment.
There is still a chance (right now, not months from now) for these people (some of whom are rather influential) to stand up and say, "Whoops! I screwed up and went all Nazi there for a bit." But I seriously doubt that is going to happen.
It's much more likely that the Brave New Normal (or some intermittent, scaled-down version of it) will gradually become our new reality. People will get used to being occasionally "locked down," and being ordered to wear masks, and not to touch each other, and to standing in designated circles and boxes, like they got used to the "anti-Terrorism measures," and believing that Trump is a "Russian asset." The coming economic depression will be blamed on the Alien-Terrorist-Death-Flu, rather than on the lockdown that caused it. Millions of people will be condemned to extreme poverty , or debt-enslaved for the rest of their lives, but they'll be too busy trying to survive to mount any kind of broad resistance.
The children, of course, won't know any better. They will grow up with their "isolation boxes," and "protective barriers," and "contact tracing," and they will live in constant low-grade fear of another killer virus, or terrorist attack, or Russian-backed white supremacist uprising, or whatever boogeyman might next appear to menace the global capitalist empire, which, it goes without saying, will be just fine.
Me, I'll probably remain kind of cranky, but I will try to find the humor in it all. Bear with me that might take a while.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volume I of his Consent Factory Essays is published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
eD , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 8:53 pm GMTOn this particular event, I researched COVID-19 a few months ago, before the lockdowns hit my part of the United States, and realized that it was BS. However, since I am powerless this had no effect on my day to day life. I didn't have the money to spend a year in a non-lockdown country, not that many exist, or retreat to some estate in the countryside. I neither own or control a business or facility that I could defy the lockdowns and keep open. I still need to have to wear a mask to go grocery shopping or starve.Levtraro , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 9:17 pm GMT
This was the case with other hoaxes such as WMD, so I am not sure who these things are aimed out. I also don't know how many proles (who, remember, mostly don't vote) really believe in them. Since they have no power, it makes no difference if they do or not. Unless you own or operate a business or something like a church that can be closed by a lockdown order, the most you can do is avoid wearing the mask that signals your compliance, and even then they get you if you have to enter a store.
The hoaxes might be aimed at the lower level functionaries, the gym owners, the lower level administrators, the cops, the inspectors who are still needed to physically enforce the edicts on the local level. However, even here, there is a collective action problem with disobedience, its only effective if a mass of them disobey, a lone individual disobeying will face retaliation.The Kremlin Stooge , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 9:45 pm GMT
My intent is not merely to mock these people (i.e., these "radical," "anti-establishment" types who fell into formation and started goose-stepping because the media told them we were all going to die), but also to use them as a clear example of how official narratives are born and take hold.
Do you read scientific articles? I know you are not a medical doctor or a scientist so no point asking about your actual experience in dealing with the virus, but you can read. Many informed and intelligent people have formed their opinion of this epidemics by reading the reported scientific evidence, experiments, epidemiological modelling, not the media. I have posted several articles published in top-ranking journals demonstrating the effectiveness of containment in China (recently a new work has been published with an analysis of the dynamics in Germany). These articles also offer the data and computer code freely to reproduce the results or adapt them to other situations.
I don't know where you live and I am sorry that you are experiencing the fascist apocalypse (obwandiyag, above) while sitting at your desk typing out your pieces. Where I live in Europe there was a serious epidemics that is now getting under control thanks to the strategy of containment. There has been no fascist uprising and there have been no politicians suddenly sig-heiling people into the totalitarian nightmare that you describe. We are all tired of this shit but as I can see around me nearly all agree that the infections have to be contained and that the effort to achieve containment has been worth the pain. I guess to stop pathogens that kill or cause great suffering to people from spreading further is a humanitarian demand, regardless of the age or health of the victims.
Also, contrary to the nightmarish situation you describe in your country, here politicians seem to be too eager to come back to their normal routine. They are not looking to perpetuate a state of emergency, quite on the contrary, scientific committes are advising them to carry on a bit further (with many postdocs doing to modelling in the background) and de-escalate in a gradual manner.
But what you describe is truly nightmarish. I see you quote a lot of twitter posts and other media to susbtantiate your fears. So either you go out and fight the fascists hordes sig-hailing you into totalitarianism from twitter, or instead you read scientific papers and calm down.lDon't forget 'Covidiots'. The frontline-worker-lovin', government-narrative-believin' social-distance welcomin' simpletons are endlessly inventive when it comes to coining contemptuous nicknames for those who don't buy into their embrace of madness. I am happy to be able to say I thought the virus was bogus from the first, and said so to anyone who would listen.Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 9:46 pm GMT
So, now there's a big demographic who stuck paper hearts in their windows the way gold-star mothers used to advertise that Someone In This House Has Gone To War. A demographic that clapped like seals every evening at 7:00 PM to show its support for everyone who was still allowed to do their job. That happily buckled down to a war mentality which excused the withdrawal of individual rights in favour of the public good. As you suggest, embarrassment is on the near horizon – what will the reaction be?
The first thing that should happen is that everyone who was in a political leadership position during this debacle, and went along with it, should be unceremoniously kicked out of office. The WHO leadership should all be fired. Police chiefs should be invited to resign, effective immediately. Everyone who willingly went along with this farce and has a responsibility to more than themselves and their immediate families should be made to publicly apologize, or wear a paper mask with "I'm an idiot" printed on it in lipstick.@LevtraroThe Kremlin Stooge , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 9:52 pm GMT
I live in Europe there was a serious epidemics that is now getting under control thanks to the strategy of containment. There has been no fascist uprising and there have been no politicians suddenly sig-heiling people into the totalitarian nightmare that you describe.
Well, in Britain (which is still part of Europe geographically) all protests, demonstrations and the like have been banned. Local elections have been delayed by one year.
The virus has been circulating since November and the excess mortality rate over and above the background rate did not start until after the lockdown commended in March. Part of this is due to the cancellation of elective surgery for at least three months – no transplants, much reduced diagnoses of new cancer cases, people with heart attacks and stroke staying away from hospitals and so on.
There has been a veritable holocaust in care homes – caused by lack of visits from GPs and a lack of availability of hospital care, and the rush to empty hospitals of older people back to care homes regardless of whether or not they had the infection. Care homes were by (emergency) law not permitted to refuse entry.
Every Thursday we are encouraged to spend several minutes of our house arrest going outdoors and clapping for the National Health Service. It's a bit like a love version of the Two Minutes of Hate in Nineteen Eighty-Four .
Well done on getting your articles published. That boast does little for the reputation of these "top ranking publications."@Levtraro Did you say, "epidemiological modelling'? You mean, like the epidemiological model that started the whole jaw-dropping overreaction in the first place? This epidemiological model?Bragadocious , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 10:03 pm GMT
The one that varied by as many as 80,000 deaths over 80 days in subsequent runs without changing any of the feed parameters? That epidemiological model? Yes, that's the sort of scientific work that calms me down every time.It's funny how American-expat-in-Germany Hopkins has generally been a huge supporter of European democratic socialism, as opposed to the Trumpian or neoliberal America which he finds so distasteful. And yet, those European countries actually locked down more ruthlessly than America. In Spain, France and the UK you couldn't even get in your car and drive 50 miles without the risk of being stopped. That was never the case here. Freedom of movement was never under threat in the U.S. I wonder what he thinks about that.SteveK9 , says: Show Comment May 20, 2020 at 10:24 pm GMTC. J., whatever hope there is in the US, lies in the fact that the country is not homogeneous. I don't think most people have yet realized that this was an epidemic in NYC and nowhere else. There were deaths, but a very small number. Los Angeles County has 11 million people and ~ 1700 deaths. Not every place is requiring a 'mask' of shame yet. Hopefully, a few states 'open up' and nothing happens, and then more, and finally if New Yorkers and a few other places want to cower and cringe for the rest of their lives, they are free to do so.SteveK9 , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:36 am GMTExample: Florida vs New York (from RT): DeSantis is the Republican Governor of Florida.Pissedoffalese , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:33 am GMT
Florida has been one of the first states to roll back lockdown orders and allow many non-essential businesses to reopen.
Many critics in the media predicted that Florida would end up "just like Italy" two weeks after reopening, DeSantis continued. "Well, hell, we're eight weeks away from that and it hasn't happened."
New York, with a population of over 19 million, has had over 250,000 cases and more than 28,000 deaths from the coronavirus. Though it has a larger population – 21 million – and more high-risk elderly residents, Florida has registered just over 47,000 cases and some 2,000 deaths.
And yet the MSM praises Cuomo to the skys, and lambasts DeSantis. Also, ignored is Cuomo's decision to empty hospitals of elderly patients and send them back to nursing homes (to die).Face Diaper.nsa , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:51 am GMT
Can't remember where I read that (maybe Taki), but every time I see a picture of these fools, I laff my ass off, 'cuz, as described, the masks just keep getting BIGGER. Now, even in my hokey little town of 1,500, well off the beaten-track, idiots are wandering around the streets and the ONE store wearing plexiglass welding face shields (is that even a THING? Would've thought welders needed something more substantial, but thereya go). Mostly, we here don't give a shit, and since there's no business here anyway, nobody was fired or laid off. Sadly, however, there's no chickens at the hardware store until June.
Guess it'll give me time to build a coop if I can get the relatives to move out before I hang myself–7 people in a single-wide, and six of them hate me.
Joy.Style Advice Please. Don't have a wu-wu virus face mask, so plan to wear girl's panties over my head when leaving the house with the ears sticking out the leg holes . But am perplexed as to whether the hash mark should go in the front or the back. Sartorial counsel appreciated as do not want to look foolish.Hail , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:57 am GMTHail , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:17 am GMT
The kind where governments declare a global "state of emergency" on account of a virus with a 0.2% to 1% lethality
Most of the studies are converging on the 0.1% range; any above 0.2% are now unusual outliers. In the words of Swiss Propaganda Research's "A Swiss Doctor on COVID19" series (which is the link provided in this essay):
According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
From the Lethality page:
Covid-19 infection fatality rates (IFR) based on antibody studies
Population-based antibody seroprevalence studies.
Global May 19 12 countries 0.02% – 0.40%
A single case was at 0.4%, Geneva, reporting as of a certain point in April; given that this is an outlier, I expect that a follow-up done now would report it down in Geneva. Wuhan reported 0.3%. Gangelt, Germany, 0.25% (small study; early outbreak).
The other nine studies in the meta-analysis average <0.1% deaths to those who are corona-positive (0.085%; range: 0.02% to 0.17%). Of course, this is Just The Flu territory, but the Corona-True-Believers still think that's laughable and worthy of derision. But there it is: <0.1%.
The virus is not going to cause any noticeable full-year mortality rise almost anywhere. The Panic-induced deaths might, in some places.Marshall Lentini , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:37 am GMT
in order to avoid their shame, they are going to do everything in their power to reify the official narrative and delegitimize anyone attempting to expose it as the fiction that it is. They are going to join in with the corporate media that are calling us "extremists," "conspiracy theorists," "anti-vaxxers," and other such epithets.
they are going to continue to insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that we are "under attack" by a "killer virus" which could "strike again at any time,"
What you are describing, and the whole Corona-Reaction phenomenon broadly, is a religious cult. The Corona Cult.
"Is Corona a religious cult? An anthropological study." (Corona as virus-centered apocalypse cult; its ascent to state religion; the mass-conversion event to the cult; a study of the cult) , by me, May 18. (See also, " The Modern-Day Cult of Corona ," by Helen Buyinski.)
I have come to understand that only in terms of religion can Corona be understood. A close look shows Corona fits all the indicators of a cult in the anthropological sense, and vert well. It is a literal religious cult (as in, non-metaphorical).
"Postmodern Western people don't do religion, don't do religious movements, so people haven't realized this is what it is."@LevtraroMr. Anon , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:12 am GMT
I live in Europe there was a serious epidemics that is now getting under control thanks to the strategy of containment.
He's had "articles published", but can't remember the golden rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationBiff , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:20 am GMT
They're going to accuse those of us on the Left of aligning with "far-Right Republican militias," and "Boogaloo accelerationists," and of being members of the Russian-backed "Querfront," and assorted other horrible things meant to scare errant leftists into line.
This been mirrored on the alt-right, where people like Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent derides anyone who doesn't share his by now weeks-long hyperventillating panic attack as a muh-freedom-loving-cuck, or a leftist fellow-traveller, or a crazy conspiracy-theorist (which is funny given that his commentariat seemed to largely consist of knee-jerk false-flag idiots and flat-earthers).@PissedoffaleseMr. Anon , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:22 am GMT
in a single-wide,
I'm guessing you got a double-wide.@Tsar Nicholasobwandiyag , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:31 am GMT
Every Thursday we are encouraged to spend several minutes of our house arrest going outdoors and clapping for the National Health Service. It's a bit like a love version of the Two Minutes of Hate in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Remember our boys bravely fighting on the Malabar Front!
As you implied, it's just a different side of the same coin. If a second-wave hits, people will be encouraged to go out on their balconies and shout out their hatred for "covid-deniers" and "anti-vaxxers".@Levtraro He lives in Germany. Who have a low incidence of the disease, and so he doesn't get it in his face like he would in some other countries.Biff , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:33 am GMT
And I swear to god, for like a whole year before the epidemic, he was writing these "humorous" articles mocking people for thinking that fascism was on the rise.
I guess it's too much to expect consistency.@R.C.Levtraro , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:48 am GMT
throes of the world's free economies.
What is a "free" economy?@The Kremlin Stooge No, I mean this:JSlade , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:50 am GMT
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004911117 (Italy and S. Korea)
But you can continue getting your info from The National Review and other outlets of the MSM.@Levtraro It's not going back to normal Even the politicians realize that there's no point in lying to us that it will. Many small businesses won't return. Men like Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt will be able to force their autistic view on reality on the rest of us. Just watch CNN for 5 minutes and you'll get a good idea of what the "new normal" is gonna look like. Break through that denial now. Shit is about to get real, or should I say , virtual. Right now you can't even tell difference.chris , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:17 am GMT@Adam Smith It's also absolutely brilliant!!!anonymous  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:30 am GMTAchmed E. Newman , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:32 am GMT
did what all true anti-fascists do when the state goes full-blown fascist
Curious, isn't it? These Antifa and other supposed loony lefty groups suddenly are all in with government totalitarianism. I saw some Maoist-RCP front group counter-picket an anti-lockdown rally. It tends to confirm my feeling that those groups are infiltrated and run by government agencies. This certainly was the most successful fear-mongering propaganda campaign of all time, full-spectrum 24/7 hysteria what with their death counts and all. This was also a training exercise. They'll analyze how this played out and refine it for the next time just as 'color revolutions' were refined and turned into a how-to textbook. Any doubt about there being a next time?Mr. Hopkins, from this 4th article of yours that I've read, I see you are really going places with the truth. I'd have probably made an effort to back-read your older stuff, maybe a couple of columns per day, had I not just seen that you are a lefty, by your own admission. As one expert on this insanity , blogger/commenter E.H. Hail has noted, this Panic/anti-Panic divide cuts across normal political divides though.Achmed E. Newman , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:45 am GMT
You bring up the Cold War as some sort of made-up thing like the "War on Terra" and the "War on Drugs" (my addition), and this War against this "virus of mass destruction", which is wrong (about the Cold War, not the rest), and it seems GloboCap(TM) is your trademark term (making no sense – I have not seen Capitalism operating without Big-Gov anywhere in the world lately, outside the illegal-Mexican run flea markets). However, I will leave that behind, as you may learn something else as you see some of the behavior you note in the antifa people and others of the left that you rightly are disgusted by here.
Therefore, I will keep reading your latest, greatest rants, "rants" said in a most admiring way, and pointing them out to friends and on the Peak Stupidity blog. Can the rest of the non-hysterical among us on the left and right around the world possibly realize from this Panic-Fest response what totalitarianism is all about? I mean, before it's too late, that is – that'd sure be nice. Maybe ideological definitions should be created from scratch out of this.
I like the 2nd half of this article, in which you explain very well, in my opinion, that 2nd option that people who have been so far wrong on this issue will almost all pick. There is no way you will get an "I was wrong" admission, much less an apology, from anyone without the integrity of a Steve Sailer, meaning, well, here on unz, nobody but Steve Sailer. Those people will be obligated to stick to their original story and do that double-thinking, even supporting Totalitarianism when they know quite well what it entails. People don't like to be wrong.
A prediction of mine is that, once it is realized that deaths of old people around the world will be pretty much the same in 2020 as in other years, along with telling us that this is because we DID properly LOCKDOWN and SHELTER-IN-PLACE! per Big-Bro's instructions and then they will bring up "it's baaaack" every so often.
Thank you for another great article, Mr. Hopkins.@eD There is plenty you can do, Ed, by example. Maybe it's my State, in which people are pretty laid back about this, whatever side they are on, but nobody ever told me to wear a mask, even though I didn't right up through last week*. I can go into the Target store right now, and if I get any BS, I'll let myself get pulled out of the store.Amon , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:47 am GMT
It won't happen like that here though, Ed. People are in friendly defiance all over the place. I suggest you do the same thing. All it takes is 300,000,000 people saying "there is nothing I can do", to let this shit get worse. It only takes a couple of dozen or so people in one place – a little too big a crowd for the police to handle without some real trouble – to lead the rest out of this stupidity.
You read the column – I take this just as seriously as Mr. Hopkins.
* I've written about this elsewhere, that, because I promised my wife, I've finally worn one of these in stores (part-time), on an airliner, and in busy places. This is solely because she was getting very upset, with a lack of sleep being a factor, with that always ready phone-infotainment around. It was either start lying to her (I wasn't going to), not go to stores or travel for work, have us on extremely bad terms, causing grief to the whole family, or wear it for a while. It's the same stupid blue thing I've kept in my pocket for a week – yes, it's probably spreading more germs that it filters – I don't care.Okay boomer.The Alarmist , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 8:11 am GMTCheer up, CJ: You can always try to smuggle a pen into the gulag to write your pieces on toilet paper. Wait! Between the body cavity searches and the lack of toilet paper, you might not be able to keep calm and carry on, but if you're lucky, they'll give you The Complete Works of Paul Krugman , and you can use some of that to wipe and some of it to cut out letters to tell your story.Parfois1 , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 8:25 am GMTKratoklastes , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 8:30 am GMT
I guess to stop pathogens that kill or cause great suffering to people from spreading further is a humanitarian demand, regardless of the age or health of the victims.
I fully agree that the first reaction of a decent health system in an epidemic breakout is to contain the infection, look after the sick and protect the most vulnerable. Containment and isolation is the first line of defence when the threat is real or imminent and that has been learned from the historical record when plagues got out of control and decimated towns and villages.
This epidemic was first reported by China as of a particularly nasty virulence, easy transmissibility and causing multi-organ pathologies to such an extent that the Wuhan epicenter's medical facilities were overwhelmed with victims and had to erect two hospitals in record time to look after them. Facing a new and, then unknown, threat, the responsible authorities acted swiftly to isolate the threat, study it and contain it to the regional source of the virus to protect the rest of the country. As a result of a firm policy of containment, the rest of China was barely touched by the epidemic, worked as normal and the number of deaths for the most populated country on Earth was limited to under 4,000. It worked, saved many lives and the Chinese economy only suffered a short hiccup.
While China was in the throes of a potential calamity because of its population's high density, almost all other countries, except its most immediate neighbours, looked on (many in the US with glee), made jokes about the Chan-virus and the ruling elites did nothing to protect their respective peoples. When it hit them, all they could do was to blame China and, too late, followed the Chinese way when the horse had already bolted. What makes this tragically farcical is that the US think-tanks, wheeler-dealers and medical experts had recently "gamed" such scenario in their computer modelling exercise Event 201, almost coincidentally with the beginning of the, still undetected, infections, which were reported later. That delay in taking firm and drastic action to effectively prevent infestation led eventually to high mortality in the densely populated countries of Western Europe (namely Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and UK) and New York. Amongst all that callous inefficiency there are some "miraculous" exceptions, such as Australia ( casual lockdown, 24 million, only 100 dead) and New Zealand, almost untouched by the coronavirus.
So, timely and systematic containment and isolation as the first defence for the protection of the people works and enables the country to resume normal life again within a short time (look at China's full-steam ahead for weeks now). It was a very efficient short and sharp treatment of a public health issue. In some other countries, particularly the US, it become a heartless political game of point-scoring, the people being the ball to kick around the field.
When the post-morten is done (but even now some lobertarians are already claiming the fictional SS, the "Sweden Success") the political football game will be replayed with unruly vigour instead of having a hard-headed look at the disaster and its lessons and how a public health issue was transformed into a political one, or was it the other way around? A political scheme of sorts transformed into a public health issue to serve as cover for some ulterior purpose as I suspect.
I have no doubts that the CV-19 is a real danger for any unprotected population and reports from the coalface about the victims' suffering are a sobering reminder of our mortality, therefore the measures, if taken by the health authorities for the welfare of the people, are legitimate and deserving our approval. But the politicization of a disaster for a hidden agenda is another matter altogether and Hopkins is right to highlight the totalitarian facet lurking behind the promoters of the pandemic, whether the source of it or the opportunistic gain of function from it.@eDJim Richard , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 9:51 am GMT
I am not sure who these things are aimed at
Karens and Cucks. That's who these things are aimed at: obese dim-witted middle-aged she-beasts whose sexual value has gone through zero and who want to scold the world and the beta-males who are 'head' of their households.
The Karens buy in immediately because it gives them social power; the cucks are cucked and so are largely irrelevant (except to the extent that their beta-ness prevents them from offering a counterbalance).
The net effect on the household is that the kids get – via Karen – the worldview of retards like Sanjay .Gupta and Dr Phil.
The net effect on society is that finger-wagging fat 40-something women becomes a norm outside of middle-school classrooms (it's been a norm inside classrooms for a generation, which is why kids can't read despite spending $15k of public funds per student per year).
This is why I refer to CNN etc as HousewifeTV . Like women's magazines, it has less intellectual content than Dora the Explorer – but stupid obese 40-something women lap it up. (Stupid obese 40-something men are also a waste of space, but they're benign by comparison – because nobody cares if you tell them to fuck off).The real illness out there: The need to be led.Parfois1 , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 9:51 am GMT@Levtraro My comment #30 is a reply to Levtraro's comment #5.Yusef , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 10:04 am GMT@Levtraro "Many informed and intelligent people have formed their opinion of this epidemics by reading the reported scientific evidence, experiments, epidemiological modelling, not the media."onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 10:34 am GMT
I applaud you for reading the scientific literature rather than getting your information from the MSM.
However, something fishy is going on in the world of science. If this goes on much longer, I will no longer refer to it as "the world of science."
Have you seen this? https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/489.full "Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed"–Kai KupferschmidtFeb. 3, 2020.
One of the contributors to the flawed study is quoted as having said, " people felt this had to be communicated quickly." This is shocking and absolutely unacceptable. These guys should be dismissed and facing criminal charges. People panicked over these kind of reports. They can almost be justified because if the virus could have done all the things reputable scientists were attributing to it, we were dealing with something the nature of which we'd never dealt with before. "There's no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring," Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. "This study lays the question to rest." Heads need to roll.
It is interesting to me you mention studies demonstrating the efficacy of the Chinese lockdowns after the lockdowns took place. Shouldn't we have had those studies in hand beforehand , and isn't there a possibility, in this new more lax climate of releasing results without peer review or complete disclosure (a la Moderna and others) of "covering their posteriors" to avoid admission of failure and cowardice?
You think the containment measures saved us, not that the virus's virulence was hyped. ( NB https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/489.full . "These findings explain the rapid geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 and indicate that containment of this virus will be particularly challenging." The virus appears to have already spread throughout the world before containment measures were enacted. Do we care about that when we evaluate the effectiveness of the containment measures?)
I would just like to ask: How sure are you this is not all because you fit the category Mr. Hopkins describes here, "In other words, in order to avoid their shame, they are going to do everything in their power to reify the official narrative and delegitimize anyone attempting to expose it as the fiction that it is. "?"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." ~ Ayn RandLevtraro , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 10:45 am GMT
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater. " Frank Zappa
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger, former British prime minister
"Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?" Ludwig Von Mises
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson
"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thomas Jefferson
"When you abandon freedom to achieve security, you lose both and deserve neither." Thomas Jefferson
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Regards, onebornfree@obwandiyag I noted that. Those pieces mocking the Russiagate-Nazi-Putin-Fascist hysteria were very funny indeed. But now he is yelling that the fascist regime is here because of the virus. It's kind of second order funny.Vojkan , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 10:47 am GMT@Marshall Lentini There's no purpose in arguing with those people. As said in the comment just above yours, they're a cult and facts have no grip on cultists.Levtraro , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 10:51 am GMT@Marshall Lentini The studies are no correlational. Read them to correct your error. I posted a cool set of top-notch research in another comment on this thread. Normally these articles are behind a paywall but publishing houses are letting all of them free for everyone to read.CJ Hopkins , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 11:07 am GMT@Hail I have revised (and asked Ron Unz to revise) the "0.2% – 1% lethality" cited in my original text to read "0.2% – 0.6% lethality" to reflect a low/high range of estimates, from the Swiss Propaganda Research data on the low end to the revised Imperial College IFR on the high end. Because so many people are jumping down each other's throats with numbers, I thought both ends of the range should be sourced.Herald , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 11:24 am GMT@obwandiyag Maybe Unz should have an "obwandiyag" button. It would likely be a very popular feature.Levtraro , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 11:36 am GMT@Parfois1 Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my comment. I agree there is substantial risk of opportunistic state aggrandizement due to the pandemics. But state-apparatchiks are nearly always looking for aggrandizement opportunities, especially in the USA where apparatchiks think they are exceptional, like to meddle in other people's businesses, go on pontificating incessantly, and essentially work for powerful minorities.Vojkan , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:07 pm GMT@Hail Great piece by Helen Buyniski. I wonder how the Bill Gates' pro-vaxx cultists at rt.com feel about it.Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMTYes C.J, Bolshevism and its evil twin Fascism have come to America. It has come openly through the Democrat Party Governors who are using the current scamdemic and the gullibility of well over half the population to destroy their state economies. It has come covertly through a president who promised to return America to its former glory days by draining the swamp, but instead has refilled it and gone along with every insider policy there is. A president who is now promising forced vaccinations via our military and "others"(UN troops?).Digital Samizdat , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:12 pm GMT
So get ready America, hell is coming to breakfast
https://www.youtube.com/embed/e63Tk-5UKPc?feature=oembed@Hail I call them the Branch Covidians -- 'We ain't coming out!'onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:19 pm GMT@onebornfree "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thomas Jeffersonnickels , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:24 pm GMT
Lockdown the entire Federal government to the "chains of the constitution", plus all local and state governments NOW!
" Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties . ".
See [@ 2/3rds of way down page] : "Sue The Mayors, City Governments, State Governors! A Coronavirus Plandemic Lockdown Solution?":
See: "Why Government Doesn't Work"
Regards, onebornfreeAlexander Dugin nailed it.anon  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:36 pm GMT
Welcome to the Medical Narco Facist States of Amerikkka.Leftotards are just waking up to the realization that they are the Billionaire Establishments Bxtch. These Antifa / anti-facist idiots are the useful idiots of the Billionaire funded Democratic party., and also their warped and pampered college professors.onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:37 pm GMT
What drives these fools is their need of a UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME period !!! none of these idiots give a rats arse about fascism as most dont even know what it is, else they wouldnt cry for Totalitarian Communism."What if the government has it wrong -- on the medicine and the law?theMann , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:40 pm GMT
What if face masks can't stop the COVID-19 virus? What if quarantining the healthy makes no medical sense? What if staying at home for months reduces immunity?
What if more people have been infected with the virus in their homes than outside them?
What if there are as many credible scientists and physicians who disagree with the government as those who agree with it?
What if the government chooses to listen only to scientists and physicians who would tell it what it wanted to hear? What if the government silences scientists and physicians, and even fires one, who attempt to tell it what it didn't want to hear?
What if the government wants to stoke fear in the populace because mass fear produces mass compliance? What if individual fear reduces individual immunity?
What if a healthy immunity gets stronger when challenged? What if a pampered immunity gets weaker when challenged? What if we all pass germs and viruses -- that we don't even know we have -- on to others all the time, but their immune systems repel what we pass on to them?
What if the COVID-19 virus has run its course and run into natural immunities? What if many folks have had symptom-free episodes with many viruses and are now immune from them? What if the government refuses to understand this because it undermines the government's power to control us? . What if -- when the pandemic is over -- folks sue the government for its destruction of life, liberty and property only to learn that the government gave itself immunity from such lawsuits? What if -- when the pandemic is over -- the government refuses to acknowledge its end? "
From: "What If the Government Has It Wrong?":
Regrds, onebornfreeI am not sure how anything is going to play out at this point, but I will make two observationsMarshall Lentini , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:41 pm GMT
1. People don't like being played, or made fools of. Maybe most of them will pretend they weren't completely suckered, same as after 9/11, but maybe a critical mass of anger is building.
2. I begin conversations with every mask wearing moron by commenting "I liked social distancing better under its original name – segregation. But let us practise standing apart, or in Afrikaans, apartheid." Then I follow up with pointing out any mask is contaminated once you take it off, so, go work on radioactives, or something. The point is, no rational argument is going to work with the hysterical little girls pretending to be adults.@LevtraroPhaeton , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 1:43 pm GMT
The studies are no correlational.
I'd say this has no relevance to what I said, but first it would have to make some normal sense. To be extra clear: that "lockdowns" stopped the spread of this virus is an assertion , and one disproved by Sweden and Belarus.
Somehow the two facts of a) two-week or greater incubation period and b) delayed or "adequate" response by various nations do not add up in the covidiot's mind to "the virus was already running its course by the time of lockdowns", because it's better for you to play chicken and the egg since you've already committed to the melodrama of coronamania. It's hard admitting one was wrong, especially when the price tag isn't presented right away.
I posted a cool set of top-notch research in another comment on this thread.
Indeed, I've looked at each these top-notch articles. But let me start with the first.
The title of the first top-notch article is The lockdowns worked -- but what comes next? . Now I'm unaware of any other field but Coronavirus Studies in which it's acceptable simply to announce , rather than propose , the thing which an alleged research paper is supposed to examine and substantiate. But when it comes to the rona, the rules (like that pesky one about correlation not implying causation) go out the window.
The second line is: The world is holding its breath. I'm also not aware of any other field which permits a cheap, moralistic tagline in its papers to preface alleged research. This is, of course, a huge red flag which you're not supposed to question. "A specter is haunting Europe "
(Well, technically the second line is: Science's COVID-19 coverage is supported by the Pulitzer Center – very gracious of them to mention, and pretty much tipping their hand as far as their motives. Ever looked at the Board of Directors at Pulitzer? Lots of NYT "assistant managing editors".)
The rest is more of the same – a mix of petitio principii, moralism, bad metaphors, and ominous assumptions about how civilization should work in the opinion of this "Kai Kupferschmidt". Here's a charming example of the totally non-fascist, un-totalitarian "model" supported by your author:
For now, the most likely scenario is one of easing social distancing measures when it's possible, then clamping down again when infections climb back up, a "suppress and lift" strategy that both Singapore and Hong Kong are pursuing. Whether that approach can strike the right balance between keeping the virus at bay and easing discontent and economic damage remains to be seen.
What you're doing here is passing off opinion pieces as research, while ignoring the mountain of actual research that the opposition have been doing in the meantime as lunatics like you preach never-ending cycles of lock-and-lift, or excuse me, "suppress and lift", as Herr Kupferschmidt would have it.
But that's all immaterial to me. I do not care about research. I am totally comfortable with a ~1%, even a 5% death rate affecting the elderly and grossly infirm. I don't care about R or any other variable. I care about not having to wear masks or stand in boxes or read moralistic tripe like this that ham-handedly tries to justify it. I am not interested in "research" whose aim is my bondage to prophylactic theater, as someone here put it – not that any of what you're offering qualifies as anything other than sunk cost fallacy propaganda, in my book.Things are very easy.Old and Grumpy , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:01 pm GMT
Smoking kills 8 million people per year in the world (plus many more millions of addicts). Have they forbidden tobacco? No.
Alcoholism kills 3 millions people per year in the world. Have they forbidden alcohol? No.
(these numbers according to WHO).
"Covid-19", with all the fraudulent data, have killed (sure?) 331.000 people up to this date. What have they done? All what Mr. Chopkins have said (i.e. shutting down the world's economy, taking out our freedom, and much more).
In other words: they don't freaking care about our health. Why is that so difficult to understand for people?I live here in PA, where the new normal resistance is real. The cops for the most part are looking the other way, except in Philadelphia. My local Amish hardware store was thankfully mask free zone. There is no social distancing at the ag auctions, nor are there masks. Someone (a pissed off Democrat no less) told me a "Karen" was at the Monday hay auction snapping pictures, and the auctioneer had people escort him out. Who'd a thunk the Amish and Mennonites leading the big old FU to Tommy Wolf and his freak health secretary? Those two clowns might just give Trump PA in the fall.Blip Blop , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:16 pm GMTCould we quit the constant libeling of "muh fascism?" Fascism was just an objectively more decent system than what we have now. At least those leaders made some attempt to benefit their people. Our current anarcho-tyrannical capitalist-socialist order squeezes us like rags to get the last drop of shekel from our crushed souls. You also cannot ignore the undercurrent of child abuse by our elites. The Fascists were quite moral and kind in comparison.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:18 pm GMT@Digital Samizdat This needs to go viral.Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:19 pm GMTHope you don't mind, I'm definitely using that onetheMann , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:27 pm GMT@Marshall Lentini Helen Buyinski's article is exceptionally accurate and detailed.Anonymous  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:34 pm GMT
Any chance Unz Review can reprint it?@Adam Smith This whole Covid 19 thing has been a giant Pain in the Ass to everyone. Unfortunately it is too real to ignore. What bothers me is the whining by folks like Mr. Hopkins, who failed to speak up about the Patriot Act and the complaints by the intelligence depts because Apple security is too tight, or countless intrusions by our government masking anti-terrorism activities or any number of wasted political investigations, the list is endless. We are as close to Fascism and Totalitarianism as we have ever been. Lets face the fact that our government is no better than the countless regimes we have criticized over the years. We are a screwed up nation that has drifted so far from the constitution, that we no longer resemble the United States of America.Che Guava , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:36 pm GMTYour comment is the one thing that truly made me LOL today.Agent76 , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:40 pm GMT
Two reasons I did not use the button. I want to hit agree with a later comment and am tired now. Also, LOL with or LOL at?
nsa, you sure hit the first category there!May 21, 2020 How Governments Are Hunting the InfectedAgent76 , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:44 pm GMT
05 Apr 2020 Dr. Fauci revealed his fears of a 'surprise outbreak' back in 2017 and warned the upcoming Trump administration would face 'challenges' with infectious diseases in a Georgetown speech
In his speech titled 'Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration,' Dr. Fauci told attendees at Georgetown University in January 2017 that the upcoming presidential administration would face 'challenges' with infectious diseases.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8188429/Dr-Fauci-revealed-fears-surprise-outbreak-three-YEARS-pandemic.html?ito=email_share_article-top@Phaeton This is where all of the fake numbers are coming from in this Plandemic.schnellandine , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
Nov 4, 2019 Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Segment 4, Communications Discussion and Epilogue Video
Event 201 is a pandemic tabletop exercise hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. The exercise illustrated the pandemic preparedness efforts needed to diminish the large-scale economic and societal consequences of a severe pandemic.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LBuP40H4Tko?feature=oembed@Digital SamizdatChe Guava , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:54 pm GMT
I call them the Branch Covidians -- 'We ain't coming out!'
I don't see that's it's funny or sane to use as disparagement of cowards a reference to folks who evinced more balls than you ever will.@Herald I agree, but already used my hourly button.botazefa , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 2:59 pm GMT@Achmed E. NewmanDavid , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:03 pm GMT
* I've written about this elsewhere, that, because I promised my wife, I've finally worn one of these in stores (part-time), on an airliner, and in busy places. This is solely because she was getting very upset, with a lack of sleep being a factor, with that always ready phone-infotainment around.
Collectively failing to stand up to our wives for the past 60 years is what got us into this mess. We've somehow managed to normalize hysterics.A couple days ago Brattleboro, Vermont made wearing masks in stores mandatory for customers. A lady at the select board meeting said masks need to be normalized, "Because it's just such a simple visible sign that people are being safe in our community."Miro23 , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:08 pm GMT
Vermonters are natural jackbooted hippies and are really getting off on covid-19.
I wish Judy Chicago were alive to design these masks.
Brattleboro, population 12,000, had ten fatal opioid overdoses in 2019 and four in April 2020. There have been three deaths in the whole county due to covid-19. Two were from NYC.
Andrew Sullivan had a post about Pepys in 1665, a year of plague in London. He recounts Pepys living life to the full -- working, partying, womanizing -- while whole families drop dead around him. Pepys lists off dozens of people in his day to day life dying while he himself does nothing, or very little, to "stay safe." His morale was never better.
Sullivan then concludes his piece, "And today, in the richest country on Earth, with medical technology beyond Pepys's wildest imagination, and a plague killing a tiny fraction of the population, some are wielding weapons in public to protest being asked to stay at home for a few more weeks and keep a social distance. Please. Get a grip."
See Pepys didn't stay home, wear a mask, or keep social distance. And he was fine, while a quarter of London's population died. So objecting to being forced to do those things is foolish since almost nobody knows anybody who's died from this "pandemic."@Hailnsa , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:13 pm GMT
The other nine studies in the meta-analysis average <0.1% deaths to those who are corona-positive (0.085%; range: 0.02% to 0.17%). Of course, this is Just The Flu territory, but the Corona-True-Believers still think that's laughable and worthy of derision. But there it is: <0.1%.
Well, now we know. So what was it all about? Was it a genuine mistake – or was it a bio-weapon that fizzled (but still delivered the anti-Chinese pre-prepared media frenzy).
Probably the latter. Recent CIA projects are more successful at raising media frenzies than delivering results (for example: full MSM and Western government support for the miserable Venezuelan coup attempt).@onebornfree Yo, onebornfree,aandrews , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:19 pm GMT
Did you cash your free-shit-from-the-guv check like all the rest of us unscrupulous $1200 whores (used to be $20 whores but there has been considerable inflation since that magic year, 1913)?" and those complaining about being out of work were people whose work is 'largely useless.'"onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
It's not the being out of work part that's actually the problem. It's the being broke part, which is a consequence of the being out of work part, that sucks.@onebornfree "Blue Pill People":onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMT
Regards, onebornfree@nsa "Did you cash your free-shit-from-the-guv check like all the rest of us unscrupulous $1200 whores "botazefa , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMT
Sorry to disappoint – I don't take "free", "shut up and be a good slave", fake money from governments. I make my own way [barely] and got off the slave plantation gravy train to hell a long time ago.
Regards, onebornfree@Kratoklastes I think you can ditch the obesity correlation.Emslander , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT
Maybe what you are noticing is that the gen-x children of 70s and 80s single moms are often man hating bitches or self hating faggots. Divorce on demand has consequences, such as an instinct to blame men for everything possible.
*my use of 'faggots' is in the gen-x vernacular to mean a wimpy little sissy@onebornfree See, I think your questions are very good, but it's like asking a 27-year-old fat woman with a BA degree what she'd think if it could be shown that there had been no gas chambers at Dakau. The question is an aggressive challenge to her weak brain cells and is, therefore, a crime.Culpepper , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT
What if the moral history of the twentieth century were the exact opposite of what we were all taught? What if unpasteurized milk is better for you? What if the substantive content of modern life adds up to a negative number?
The problem with conversion is that you have to admit that everything you think you know is incorrect.@schnellandine Perhaps it is the aspect of paranioa that makes it aptNancy Pelosi's Latina Maid , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 3:56 pm GMTHopkins can't make the connection between belittling the "white-nationalist morons" and this "new normal" he now decries. What did you think was gonna happen in America once white people were kicked to the curb?Vojkan , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMT
I'm a proud supporter of those white men who put their lives and reputations on the line in Charlottesville to stand up for my people. Our "new normal" happened many years ago, with
• gay marriage
• "hate" speech
• socialized medicine inc. federally-funded abortions
• central and fractional banking
• taxation slavery
• the enforced associations and affirmative action of civil rights
Our nation was founded on the voting rights of white male landowners. Everything since then is abnormal.@obwandiyag One certainly can't reproach you inconsistency in disingenuousness. It is pretty much obvious to everyone except you that the fascism the author is seeing rising and the fascism he dismisses as a fantasy are distinct.botazefa , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:07 pm GMT@Johnny Walker ReadWhitewolf , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:24 pm GMT
A president who is now promising forced vaccinations via our military and "others"(UN troops?).
I heard about the Trump floating the idea of the military *assisting* with vaccines.
But forced vaccinations? What's your reference.
DuckDuckGo has no relevant matches on 'trump forced vaccinations'.
Are you making it up?@anonymousanonymous  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:31 pm GMT
Curious, isn't it? These Antifa and other supposed loony lefty groups suddenly are all in with government totalitarianism.
Not curious or surprising in the least. They have always been funded by the same people that control the government.@YusefSolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:35 pm GMT
something fishy is going on in the world of science.
Scientists are for sale as they are usually on one payroll or another. Interested parties shop around for ones that will say what they want them to say. Sure there's independent ones and those who report the facts but the waters get muddied and the average person doesn't know whose word to trust. Ditto with so-called studies which often have a predetermined outcome according to those financing them. Lots of academic corruption and fraud goes on. Don't take what the folks in white lab coats tell you as gospel but match it up against your own common sense. Just look at the history of the harmful quack nonsense the 'experts' of the day have promoted in the past hundred years or so.@Achmed E. Newman ""because I promised my wife, I've finally worn one of these in stores (part-time), on an airliner, and in busy places. This is solely because she was getting very upset,""Yusef , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:35 pm GMT
A Corona Marano.@onebornfree "What if we all pass germs and viruses -- that we don't even know we have -- on to others all the time, but their immune systems repel what we pass on to them?"Getaclue , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:41 pm GMT
This one isn't a "what if" but a known and important fact about our amazing world. We are slathered in bacteria, viruses, and many, many other micro- and macro- organisms. At one time I was even able to see several species of benign lice on my skin and the skin of others, without using a magnifying glass or microscope. If I recall correctly, there are at least seven species of these Not only are they not harmful, they are helpful. They live on dried, dead skin, among other things.
That's the general case, friends. The bacteria and viruses surrounding us are not usually detrimental. We must have them around. They are a part of the general good health of the planet and all living things.
The viruses are absolutely fascinating. They play a role in the evolution of life on planet earth we are only beginning to fathom. It is a form of madness to think they are all pathogenic. Overwhelmingly they are not.
The viruses can't be eradicated the way we eradicated small pox, for example.
I have my own theory about this mess, which I hold only with remorse. We only know about it because we looked for it. We wouldn't have observed anything out of the ordinary this year based on the epidemiological distributions and incidences of sicknesses and deaths. There's nothing wrong with looking around and discovering new things, but this is clearly not a realm readily usable for forming immediate public policy, especially not drastic and unprecedented public policy.
Everyone who played a part in making this into immediate, drastic and unprecedented public policy needs to be held accountable. We need a very thorough review of the interplay of these multiple factors, and a good house cleaning is in order. I don't know what I will do if once more I see us refusing to admit our mistakes, but even worse will be refusing to learn from them.
As always, these two steps are the only way forward. I can't believe we in the USA are failing in this area. It seemed to me it was here, if anywhere, our form of society had an advantage. (Well, maybe not the politicians, but in business, make a big mistake and in the USA, you're out. That was not a bad thing. The others in business saw the mistake, avoided it, learned and went on.)
Regards,@Anonymous The Face Mask "Study" that was released in the New England Journal of Medicine has now been DEBUNKED as a FRAUD and as garbage even by the Scientists who put it out -- they've admitted this now. However, you probably haven't heard this because the Mainslime Media has ignored it and is still using it to cause us to be forced to wear these insanely stupid Masks.Getaclue , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:46 pm GMT
As you say this is whole thing is "too real to ignore" -- but the reason it is? Because it is a complete and total pre-planned "Elite" FRAUD on the Peons, to strip them of all rights and impoverish them, being hoisted on a Cold Virus the NWO ChiComs released that is about as bad as a Seasonal Flu. People need to wake up–especially supposedly intelligent people who come to this site and publish articles and comments. Here is the retraction of the phony "Study" used to Face Mask us all (never done as to a Cold Virus– as even Dr. Fauci said on TV–because it does nothing –might even make you sick .): https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong@onebornfree The reason for ordering/coercing Face Mask wearing by the Public has now been DEBUNKED as a FRAUD! The actual Scientists have admitted it was total and complete garbage. The Mainslime Media, no surprise, is ignoring this and still using the debunked "study" that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on January 30th– the CDC used it to reverse the ALWAYS applied standard based on Science that wearing in mass Face Masks by the Public does NOTHING as to a Cold Virus. Here is the article as to the what happened: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrongHail , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMT@Achmed E. NewmanHail , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:53 pm GMT
Good phrase. Good thought.
We know that Corona is a giant with feel of the softest clay you can find, but that's just on the facts and the science. Corona-Alternative-Facts just don't care.
Is the Corona With Feet of Clay defeated by a thousand small acts by nobodies doing friendly defiance?
Such as, declining to take those extra few steps to avoid someone. Walking in a straight line as a dissident act .
While on the subject. Please, Corona-Believers, no more of that halting entirely to keep well out of the way, followed by glowering at the other person as he passes; that's just bizarre. The Corona Halt-and-Stare.@LevtraroDumbo , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:59 pm GMT
Where I live in Europe there was a serious epidemics that is now getting under control thanks to the strategy of containment
[Disagree.]Covid-19 is really Rohrschach-19. It seems that the "panic" went both ways. One one side the extreme hysteric reaction with the "lockdown" of healthy people, the theatrics of the authorities and media with a disease that apparently kills mostly people over 80, but on the other hand also the protesters about "fascist takeover" and "totalitarianism". Look, it wasn't that bad, as far as totalitarianism goes. Except perhaps in North Korea, no one was shot. Maybe with Bill Gates' vaccine things will get worse, but, so far, it wasn't that bad. I think the "Transdemic", i.e. pretending that transexuals are "women" and all the craziness about "anti-racism" is much worse.Poco , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 4:59 pm GMT
Now, for those who had a small business, yes, it was bad, and being locked at home for weeks has not been fun (also, rather pointless). But in Germany, where I believe the author lives, the lockdown has been quite light, and while many places closed there was never a prohibition to be outside. Even masks were only used later on and only in supermarkets, shops, etc. So, while inconvenient, it was not really Nazi Germany II.
Anyway, it's a quite strange situation really, and I wonder what will happen next, my impression is that people are becoming more cynical and will not accept a "second wave" lockdown, which makes me think if either there is a great conspiracy, or our elites are really dumb and incompetent. Or maybe it's both things? Like in the title of that book, a "conspiracy of dunces". They are evil and Machiavellic but they are also a bit dumb.@Bragadocious Hopkins is a leftist. Leftists like big government. He fails to realize that big government always means more authoritarianism.Hail , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:00 pm GMT@Mr. AnonPhaeton , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:06 pm GMT
If a second-wave hits
Knut Wittkowski ( writing April 26 and May 5 ) on the "second wave":
With 30% already immune, the next wave, if any, will be minor, at most.
[Studies] show that there is enough immunity to make sure that a second wave – if any – is mild.
A "second wave" CAN be created artificially created by the media by hyper focus on a few stories (much like the original wave; it was another foretold-apocalypse-washout as proved by the easy handling of the whole thing in Stay-Open Sweden).
From a comment I wrote elsewhere on April 5 :
The media cannot keep its Corona Cocaine Binge, and its ongoing CoronaBloodlust, going for months on end. But it may well get a "second wind" at it, when the "second wave" of Corona cases comes in the fall. A CoronaPanic Second Wave .
I'll tell you what would be ironic, is if the Nov. 2020 presidential election ends up being a referendum on Corona Shutdowns:
Yes Corona Shutdowns: BIDEN
No Corona Shutdowns: TRUMP
This scenario seems at once so crazy as to be laughable, and yet also plausible to actually happen. Somehow both at the same time. God help us.
I'm not sure how realistic this exact scenario looks now. Does anyone care about Biden anymore? Would he really position himself as the Pro-Shutdowns guy if the media begins artificially creating a second panic wave?@Blip Blop I can't "agree-button" at you yet but I completely agree with you. I live in Spain and this is complete madness. I see so many kids wearing masks, that I would get depressed if it weren't because I see other parents avoiding all this stuff, which give me hope. Today I saw a pregnant woman wearing a mask, and I have wondered if this unborn human being is suffering because of her (of course she is probably thinking that she is doing the best for him/her).J. Gutierrez , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:07 pm GMT
Here in my country masks have been mandatory everywhere in public areas (unless you can keep the famous 2 meters with others) since yesterday, but people have used them for almost two months already.@Achmed E. Newman – I have not seen Capitalism operating without Big-Gov anywhere in the world lately, outside the illegal-Mexican run flea markets).Dumbo , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:11 pm GMT
I agree with you, and will add the many self operating street vendors throughout Mexico. Capitalism at it's finest
From beautiful Deer Park, Texas with love, J.G.@Dumbo Of course, I say this if this is just an exception, but if this really becomes the "new normal", then it's not good. And in fact I think this was just a "laboratory", in preparation for something worse later onPoco , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:20 pm GMT@Levtraro Third order funny is that you two can't tell the difference. He's essentially mocking hysterical reactions to two seperate hoaxes that reify already existing authoritarianism.Getaclue , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:21 pm GMT@Levtraro Tired of the "Models" and Statistics of all the NWO bought off "Experts" funded by Gates Foundation and Rockefeller -- all of them are little more than Prostitutes/Whores.Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:39 pm GMT
I have actually hired "Experts" for decades -- who pays them and funds their "grants" etc. directly effects their "opinions". You can literally get them to "Model" whatever and testify to anything–for $$$ -- grant or otherwise– and I am talking about World Class Credentialed "Experts". This is the REALITY -- if you argue otherwise you are either an Agenda driven partisan, ignorant or have never dealt with them.
As the other person stated above -- "Expert" Neal Ferguson has been completely discredited (boffing the Married Leftist "Activist" proved he totally did not believe in the "Social Distancing" garbage either -- it appears in NO infectious disease Textbook and no one in the Field has ever taught it) -- this TOTAL BS of claiming the lock downs worked in periodicals/magazines run by them? Please peddle it elsewhere! -- We in fact know they don't work -- you don't Quarantine Healthy People -- and in some cases, thankfully proving this, the timing showed that the lock downs clearly could not have been the reason for downturns (California etc. -- clearly Herd Immunity was already in play one of the greatest Scientists ever in the past as to Small Pox and other pandemics stated they should not be used, do some research?) -- what people like Ferguson do is put themselves in a position so that regardless of what happens they can claim they are right. Funny how that works? His "Models" were garbage–the actual data he used as "garbage in" has now been analyzed and, yes, it was garbage.
So we have the same networked "Experts" now covering for themselves and Ferguson, and putting out, in their own Magazines/Periodicals they control, what you then cite in your comment -- it is all CYA BS -- peddle it elsewhere.
Here is another example of the "Experts" at work. On January 30th the New England Journal of Medicine published a "Study" that claimed, unlike any Cold Virus EVER, this one was different– that there were "asymptomatic spreaders" -- the "Study" was then used by the CDC to put out the "wear Face Masks" change of position directive (Dr. Fauci also used it as he had previously said publicly on TV they were useless– which they have always been known to be in the past .). It is still being used to this day to order and coerce the wearing of Face Masks. Problem? It was a total and complete FRAUD.
Even the Scientists who actually did it have now admitted it was "FLAWED" and total garbage. Unfortunately, the NWO Globalist Media and "Experts" are still using it to justify forcing the Face Mask wearing and resulting fear mongering. They need to arrest Ferguson for what he did and start really penalizing these "Experts" who are nothing but Agenda driven shills. Here is the retraction as to the phony "flawed" Study: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong@Nancy Pelosi's Latina Maid Who does Hopkins think will defend White interests? Here's a short list of who won't:Yusef , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
Good luck to orcs, mestizos and chingchongs who think they'll do better.@Getaclue I had to think about it a bit, but you've got a point. That flawed study did promote face mask wearing in public even though there is not a word in it about face masks or ordering/coercing their wearing.450.org , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:01 pm GMT
(There's a picture with a Chinese-looking woman who is wearing a face mask at the top of the page.)
The NEJM is an interesting publication. I believe it serves an important function within the medical community but it is important not to take its reports as authoritative or necessarily even scientific.
Before the results were debunked the studious would have noticed how very small the sample size was. Am I right to see there were less than ten people in that group, and that one woman– one woman!– was at the heart of the "evidence." Wow. This was used to support a novel (for the USA) public policy affecting millions and millions of people.
Also note the irreplaceable genius of our hero and savior Dr. Anthony Fauci as he is quoted at the end of the article. He still believes asymptomatic transmission occurs even after the slender thread of evidence upon which that belief might have been supported has been kicked out from under him. He obviously didn't need scientific support in the first place– he has an agenda.
It is lucky I am a nobody in nowhereville and will never be anywhere near these creeps. I don't think I could restrain myself if I had any opportunity whatsoever to, um, commit a terrible violent crime. (Can I admit this? My posts are moderated and if this offends, please feel free to delete that one part. Please allow me to say the rest.)I can't believe how many CDC and WHO employees are on here advocating no face mask.Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:23 pm GMT
The World Health Organization (WHO) says healthy people don't need to wear face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and masks should only be for those who are sick, their caretakers and health care workers.
In guidance released by WHO Monday, the United Nations public health agency said "there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."
WHO said the use of medical masks among the general public could create a false sense of security and cause people to ignore social distancing measures and hygiene practices. Currently in the U.S., the overwhelming majority of states have issued stay-at-home orders to stop the spread of the virus, and federal guidance advises citizens to stay home and not gather in groups of more than ten through April 30.
This is from late March before the CDC changed its tune.
The CDC currently states that healthy people do not need to wear face masks unless they are caring for someone who is ill with the new coronavirus.
So, it appears the WHO and the CDC are indeed fascist as is noted that they are in agreement with the fascists at this venue.
Also, nothing is more fascist than the government ordering slave wage peasants back into filthy disease-infested slaughterhouses (slaughterhouses are incubators for COVFEFE-19 -- they are America's wet markets) under the aegis of the Defense Protection Act.@Bragadocious Sweden is more "left" than Germany, France or the UK. They didn't lock down anyone. The UK government is more "right" than any UK government since John Major was PM.Stan d Mute , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:25 pm GMT
The notion that the US government, or Trump for that matter, isn't authoritarian, is absurd. Presidents, by nature of the position, are authoritarian. The same goes for legislative bodies. The only issue is whether you recognize the authority they exert.@PhaetonCurmudgeon , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:28 pm GMT
In other words: they don't freaking care about our health. Why is that so difficult to understand for people?
I'm sure that was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway. People (in general) don't understand because they are stupid. Profoundly and probably irreversibly stupid, compounded exponentially by a media propaganda barrage praising the retards for their great intelligence. When more than half the total US population has an IQ below 100, yet thinks itself brilliant because the talking heads on MSNBC tell them so, the CoronaCaust is the logical outcome really.
I'd bet my favorite dog that significantly fewer than 50% could adequately explain the germ theory of disease, infectious pathogens, or the human microbiome. They could, however, expound interminably on the glories of Beyonkey's latest autotuned hit or point out how you are a racist for noticing the facts in evidence that they pretend not to see.
Given the dysgenic trends in human reproductive rates compounded by modern medicine enabling every retard to survive and reproduce, we should all get ourselves very used to being governed by the irrational terrors of simpletons.@Biff Probably not what R.C. is referring to, but my definition would be an economy free of the international banking cartel and its big casinos like Wall Street.schnellandine , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:29 pm GMT@CulpepperCurmudgeon , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:31 pm GMT
Perhaps it is the aspect of paranioa that makes it apt
You remind me of an absurd TV special years ago that played audio of some wiretapped guys theorizing that ATF was out to get them and their guns. The underlying video was of their guns, stolen, in an ATF warehouse . The lead-in narration discussed how paranoid these crazy gun nuts had been. They now sat in concrete and steel cages, their guns taken, gleeful psyop tool mocking their wiretapped concerns as 'paranoid' for being 100% correct regarding a threat which was active at the time they expressed concern that it might be happening .
In other words, pretty much the same psyop that media ran on you successfully re the Mt. Carmel invasion and massacre, assuming you're sincere. Associating paranoia with them is beyond ignorant. They had an irrational/delusional fear that they were going to be persecuted worse than they were?A good column overall, Mr. Hopkins, but what is going on now is not "real fascism". Real fascists would have taken care of the usurious bankers by now, not given them more money to f*ck us over.Stan d Mute , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:32 pm GMT@botazefaYusef , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:33 pm GMT
Collectively failing to stand up to our wives for the past 60 years is what got us into this mess. We've somehow managed to normalize hysterics.
This is indeed the root cause. I have yet to spot a Man in a mask (except for the brilliant trolls wearing pantyliners and klan hoods).@450.org "Also, nothing is more fascist than the government ordering slave wage peasants back into filthy disease-infested slaughterhouses (slaughterhouses are incubators for COVFEFE-19 -- they are America's wet markets) under the aegis of the Defense Protection Act."Jake , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:37 pm GMT
I happen to agree with you here, and am offended if you think I or most people commenting against you would disagree. The gov't shouldn't be able to order people to work any more than the gov't should be able to order people not to work.
"I can't believe how many CDC and WHO employees are on here advocating no face mask."
You can't believe– or understand– but that's because you are not paying close attention. And that's a shame.
Do you see the CDC and WHO were advocating no face mask for the reason there was no evidence of their being effective? Do you see the CDC and WHO changed and began advocating face masks when very slim evidence which turned out to be faulty emerged? Do you see the CDC and WHO have not reversed their position now we are again in the situation of there being no evidence of the effectiveness of face masks?Bravo.Alden , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 6:59 pm GMT@Hail Good news, The Atlantic just laid off 68 employees due to lack of advertising revenue. Noticed my local newspaper is half the size it was in February due to lack of advertising pages.Alden , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:11 pm GMT@Kratoklastes Just because your age, ugliness, obesity, stupidity and a surly personality means you can't get laid is no reason to hate women.Alden , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:16 pm GMT@Yusef End of February I asked 2 Drs about wearing a mask when flying. One said don't wear a mask or worry. The other said as long as you're not in the international terminal near the Chinese airlines sections, don't wear a mask or worry.idrankwhat , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 7:57 pm GMT@CJ Hopkins There are credible estimates of much lower IFR:Joe Levantine , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 8:05 pm GMT
https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/@eD There are things that regular people can do to fight the the new abnormal. I still offer my hand to anyone who is willing to take it. I go for my daily walks in a group of two or three without keeping any social distancing and I argue my case with any cop who tells me that I am disobeying the law, reminding him that we are in the same side against the crooks, the cowards, the fools, the freaks and the tyrants who are trying to mould us into obedient slaves. Though in the interest of full disclosure, I should clearly state that I sensed the totalitarianism of the American government around thirty years ago and left the United States on a one way ticket to a third world whose virtue is a government that is weak enough not to overpower its society.Phaeton , says: Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2020 at 8:14 pm GMT
Resistance should be primarily in your mind. While I would not blame anyone for avoiding a confrontation with American mad dog policemen, having watched with horror how four of those brutes attacked retired ex long time CIA high official Mr. Ray McGovern when he asked the senators in charge of vetting Gina Haspel a legitimate question only to be attacked by these senseless brutes, dragged out the room and pulled down to the floor suffering a dislocated shoulder, I would not allow myself to admonish American citizens for avoiding any attempt at talking reason to these goons in blue uniforms. But I think that you will have won at least a half victory if you simply play the routine without making yourself hostage to the fear mongering and by clearly stating to your company that you are wearing the mask for the sake of putting the gullible at ease.
Unless the United States moves into a system of decentralisation with more empowerment to the state and local communities, the Fascist clutches of the federal government backed by the technocracy will keep whittling away at the freedoms of the citizens dooming them to a life of slavery.@Stan d Mute As you said, it was retorical. I have to say that I am extremely surprised to see how irrational people can be, though. Because it is not only that they are ignorant about a topic, which is something normal. It is that you can't argue with them. And I am not talking only about people who watch mainstream media, but also many people from the so-called alternative world.
Just an example: yesterday a relative was worried because her friends had "attacked" her in a Whatsapp group (because in person most of them are a cowards who wouldn't say anything) for criticizing the measure of making masks mandatory in all Spanish public places if we can't have a separation of 2 meters. They were all defending that all people should wear masks in public, doesn't matter if you are alone in the street (strangely enough, none of them talk about Sweden and Iceland). THIS IS THE LEVEL in the country where I live. These people are attacking people without knowing, as you say, even the most elemental knowledge of mainstream immunology. If they, instead of watching news 24/7, would have read a couple of chapters of any good book about this topic, they would see, at least, some of the lies regarding vaccines (I feel like crying everytime someone confuses "treatment" with "prevention").
The last sentence in your comment is quite scary. For some reason I have recalled about one of the stories about what happened to Laozi. I copy this fragment from Wikipedia (yeah, I know ): "The third story in Sima Qian states that Laozi grew weary of the moral decay of life in Chengzhou and noted the kingdom's decline. He ventured west to live as a hermit in the unsettled frontier at the age of 80."
I wonder what he would do if he would see the unbelievably decline of today.
To be honest, the only thing that give me hope today is seeing young people, around 16-20, completely ignoring the social distancing and masking psyop.
May 21, 2020 | www.oxfordscholarship.com
During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin. 1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate, America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here, infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.
The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul. Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's leadership and high level of domestic support. 4
Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman, referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of Donald Trump." 7
The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country, not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane 'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and retweeted the message. 11
To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call. 12
In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration. It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016 presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March 12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation, announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15
Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms. 17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that of a hawk, including on Russia. 20
Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime." 22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders. Opposition to the "Collusion" Narrative
In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative, libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.
The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to "derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and smear campaigns. 25
Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's "feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75% approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and globalization. 30
Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that, overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine, appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian business with ties to the Kremlin. 34
The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of (p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators -- reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day." 36
However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's "laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40 Explaining Russophobia
The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.
The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of 2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October 2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44
During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.
The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48
Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses. Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a "regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.
Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .' A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White House." 52
In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55
Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93) Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57
There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new "suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.
May 20, 2020 | www.amazon.com
Today when you factor in the interest on the national debt from past wars and total defense expenditures the United States spends almost 40% of its federal budget on the military. It accounts for over 46% of total world arms spending. Before World War II it spent almost nothing on defense and hardly anyone paid any income taxes. You can't have big wars without big government. Such big expenditures are now threatening to harm the national economy. How did this situation come to be?
In this book you'll learn how in the critical twenty years after World War II the United States changed from being a continental democratic republic to a global imperial superpower. Since then nothing has ever been the same again. In this book you will discover this secret history of the United States that formed the basis of the world we live in today.
By buying this book you will discover:
- - How the end of European colonialism created a power vacuum that the United States used to create a new type of world empire backed by the most powerful military force in human history.
- - Why the Central Intelligence Agency was created and used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations when the United States Constitution had no mechanism for such imperial activities.
- - How national security bureaucrats got President Harry Truman to approve of a new wild budget busting arms race after World War II that is still going on to this day.
- - Why President Eisenhower really gave his famous warning against the "military-industrial complex."
- - Why during the Kennedy administration the nuclear arms race almost led to the end of the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- - How President Kennedy tried to deal with what had grown into a "permanent government" of power elite national security bureaucrats in the executive branch of the federal government that had become more powerful than the individual president himself.
In this book you will discover this secret history of the United States that formed the basis of the world we live in today.
Jeff Marzano 5.0 out of 5 stars Good Overview Of The Cold War , May 10, 2018LCH Burris 5.0 out of 5 stars Masterful February 8, 2016
Good Overview Of The Cold War
This book provides a good overview of the so called Cold War I thought.
I read this book as part of my ongoing research about the assassination of President Kennedy. At this point in my research I need to move past the nuts and bolts of the assassination like how many times JFK was shot and things like that. Those aren't the most important questions. The important issues are who wanted John Kennedy dead and why and how were they able to do something like that. There had to be some major reasons why they would commit such a monumental crime. And those reasons are revealed in books like this somewhere.
When I say 'they' I mean the Military Industrial Complex. I have no doubt that John Kennedy was stabbed in the back by treasonous elements within his own country. It's hard for me to tell how extensive this conspiracy really went and into what areas of the Military Industrial Complex. The CIA and the Joint Chiefs Of Staff are on the suspect list though. There was no love lost between President Kennedy and the military and intelligence establishments. Mr. Swanson tells how Robert Kennedy was concerned that the military brass might kill his brother during the ominous Cuban Missile Crisis.
Some of those generals like Curtis 'Bombs Away' Lemay lost their marbles during World II I think. Lemay didn't seem to understand what nuclear weapons really are. Lemay seemed to speak about the use of nuclear weapons in World War II terms like they were just another type of bomb.
Near the end of the book Mr. Swanson mentions some things Jackie Kennedy said her husband John was planning to do:
- Attend a peace summit in Moscow.
- Remove J. Edgar Hoover as the director of the FBI.
- Replace Dean Rusk in the State Department.
- Get control of the government's policy in Vietnam.
That list right there is an excellent starting point for understanding some of the many reasons why the War State wanted John Kennedy dead.
Mr. Swanson talks about an important government directive called NSC-68. This National Security Council directive labelled any country that refused to bow to the will of the United States a communist sympathizer. And any country that got on that list was then subject to the CIA's evil machinations.
Some authors such as the great Fletcher Prouty felt the entire Cold War was a myth that was fabricated by the War State to justify their own existence.
For me the assassination of President Kennedy and the quagmire in Vietnam confirm that hypothesis. Those are two historical realities which indicate that the War State had flown off the rails.
- JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
- JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
- The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
- The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War
- The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ
- The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson
- Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume II (Volume 2)
- Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years
- Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third EditionBob Valdez 4.0 out of 5 stars How the US came to be influenced by the military-industrial complex , September 28, 2015
Having studied this period of history for over 45 years, as a history major in exactly this subject at University.
And as a consumer of what must be in excess of 3-400 books on this subject, I can say this is quite simply the best one-volume analysis of U.S. defense policy 1945 - 1964 that has been produced. The bulk of it presents facts known to students of the period, plus certain additional lesser-known facts revealed by recent declassifications in both the US and Russia.
However, it re-analyzes these facts to produce a masterful synthesis more clearly stated here than I have seen in any other volume.
The only complaint is that the book should be more fully footnoted -- not only to source some of the factual statements, but also to explain the author's chain of reasoning from the source to the statement -- as well as be re-published with a proper index and bibliography. In a sense, the author has under-rated himself. Properly footnoted and indexed, this would be not merely an excellent popular read but a work of scholarship with which students of the field would have to reckon from now on.Phil Dragoo 5.0 out of 5 stars Ike named it; it buried JFK; Swanson reveals it July 23, 2019
How the US came to be influenced by the military-industrial complex
This book is a pretty well done tome about how the military-industrial complex came to be. The overall layout is much like a history book but if the reader is patient it begins to unfold with some level of comfort after a few dozen pages. The properly told story is long overdue and it probably will not have wide acceptance but that is the overall sign of our times. The author does not go into enough detail to tie in today's US government administration and how deep the corruption has grown.
If you wish to be an informed voter or just a more informed citizen, reading such books as this one will help bring you around to becoming a bit better enlightened. Read, recognize, respond. All comes in time.
Ike named it; it buried JFK; Swanson reveals it.
Verified Purchase Ike named it -- it buried JFK
Michael Swanson's The War State is a keystone work in understanding modern America's lone superpower position.
While Preparata's Conjuring Hitler presents Montagu Norman and Bank of England as financing the rise of the Third Reich as the initiation of the modern military-intelligence age, and Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers introduces Dulles & Dulles as the twin inventors of America's role as stage manager, Michael Swanson raises the curtain on Eisenhower's finale, the introduction of the Colossus astride Washington .
The War State punctuates Robert Wilcox' Target: Patton, the removal of the threat of premature end to the Cold War, and David Martin's signal work uncovering the termination of the first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal for resisting the Truman-Marshall military steroid injection, itself inextricably entwined with the Acheson-enabled Korean War.
The National Security Act of 1947 and its follow-on codas, the 1948 plausible deniability agreement and 1949 amendments, lead to the SAC/ICBM buildup, the preamble to Northwoods and the dream of a first strike.
The Vietnam War fought over the dead body of the thirty-fifth president is examined in John Newman's two editions of JFK and Vietnam, and the sequence of subsequent research works, all adding to Douglas Horne's view of JFK's War with the National Security Establishment, as well as James Douglass' eerie scene through a glass darkly, JFK and the Unspeakable.
We are gifted with Michael Swanson's concise and unitized depiction of the threat President Eisenhower succeeded in naming January 1961 despite repeated attempts to airbrush the indictment from history.
Why are we faced with unending war in Afghanistan against a shadowy enemy first introduced by April Glaspy's invitation to Saddam Hussein echoing Acheson's omission of Korea in the January 1950 Press Club speech?
Why do towers fall in unprecedented fashion defying laws of physics?
As Litvinenko and Felshtinsky's Blowing Up Russia reveals Putin as the rebranding mastermind of Golitsyn and Bezemov, and Xi Jinping rides the dragon into the fifth millenium, Oceania's capital remains in the orbit of the Pentagon and Langley and the constellation of corporations involved in Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett's Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil.
Michael Swanson pulls the construct from the mist and plants it front and center in the dramatic end of the Republic and the bulletins from the frontlines of Big Brother's proxy wars in the nonaligned quadrangle.
It isn't personal -- it's business.
SkyNet and The Matrix and the gigantic digital nemeses of Person of Interest are mere terms of art.
The military-industrial complex is as real as LBJ's heart attack -- and exposed in The War State.
Apr 30, 2020 | www.newsmax.com
Yet another bombshell development emerged Thursday in the case of former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn: the release of additional exculpatory evidence FBI officials had withheld from the courts and the defense for three years.
Crucially, this includes evidence that the Bureau's official "302 report" filed by the lead agent who interviewed Flynn was edited multiple times, including by an official who never participated in the interview.
Thursday's revelations come on top of yesterday's disclosures indicating an apparent attempt by FBI officials to trap Flynn into committing a criminal offense during an interview.
The new revelation could prove even more significant: In addition to the apparently calculated effort to get Flynn to commit perjury or obstruction, top FBI figures, including FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, repeatedly altered the "302 report" that was filed after the Flynn interview.
That interview was conducted under highly unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, an FBI interview of a top West Wing official would be requested through the White House Counsel's office, and would be conducted in the presence of legal counsel representing the official being interviewed.
That did not occur in the case of the FBI's interview with Flynn, and Comey later stated that under "a more organized administration" he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with it."
Initially, when the lead FBI agent handling the case was asked whether Flynn lied during the interview, he stated that he did not believe so.
But over the coming days Strzok and Page would edit and revise the agent's 302 report repeatedly, according to a document providing text messages between FBI officials that the defense counsel finally received this week.
Prosecutors and investigators are required to turn over information that might tend to indicate a suspect's innocence to the defense counsel prior to trial and sentencing. Most legal analysts would consider the information withheld from Flynn's legal team potentially exculpatory.
An inside source familiar with efforts to defend Gen. Flynn tells Newsmax an unadulterated, original 302 document exists that was created by the lead agent from his notes of the interview with Flynn.
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who testified before the House during President Trump's impeachment, wrote Thursday the decision to keep the case open occurred when "Special counsel Robert Mueller decided to bring the dubious charge."
In a column posted on TheHill.com on Thursday, Turley said the case against Flynn should be dismissed. "Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution," he wrote.
At the time Flynn was being prosecuted, Mueller was seeking evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign.
Critics say he was prosecuting Flynn to get him to turn state's witness against Trump, but the general never implicated him.
Mueller eventually determined there was no evidence of a Russian-collusion conspiracy. But by then Flynn, under intense financial pressure from the prosecution and buckling under the threat that his son could be drawn into a legal quagmire, had pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.
He has since requested to withdraw that plea, and he is awaiting sentencing.
President Trump weighed in on the controversial case Thursday morning tweeting, "What happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again!"
Later the president told reporters he believes Flynn is "in the process of being exonerated."
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis indicated no crime had been committed.
Kerik told Newsmax Thursday that if evidence or records had been unduly altered under his watch as police commissioner, he would have referred the matter to the district attorney for possible prosecution.
"They intentionally went back and doctored the original 302," he said. "That's because they were not looking for the truth.
"They were looking for a mechanism to trap Gen. Flynn, to prosecute him, to get him fired in order to go after the president. That was their motive, that was their agenda. It's absolutely clear at this point they were not looking for the truth."
Kerik added, "This was done at the highest levels of the FBI. At the most senior level of the FBI, they falsified records, they suppressed evidence.
"This is irresponsible, it's outrageous They used and abused their authority to deprive Gen. Flynn of his constitutional right to freedom," he said.
According to the source, as supported by text messages also obtained by Newsmax, Stzrok, who also participated in the Flynn interview, rewrote the 302 extensively -- although a text message from him stated he tried not to "completely re-write it so as to save [redacted] voice," presumably a reference to the lead agent who originally wrote it.
Stzrok then shared the document with a "pissed off" Page, who had not participated in the interview, and who revised it significantly again, according to the Newsmax source.
The objective of the interview was to probe whether Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an 18th-century statute that has never been used in any criminal conviction. The Act makes it a crime for a U.S. citizens to interfere with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Many legal scholars find the law to be unconstitutional.
The documents received by Newsmax indicate the case had virtually been closed – suggesting the lead agent was satisfied no crime had been committed -- prior to it being reopened by the direct intervention of Strzok and Page.
The documents, for example, show the probe of Flynn was about to be put to bed when the lead agent received a text from Strzok stating, "Hey, if you haven't closed [the case], don't do so yet."
Apparently, Page was pleasantly surprised to find the matter had not yet been closed.
On Feb. 10, 2017, Page texted Strzok, "This document pisses me off. You didn't even attempt to make this cogent and readable? This is lazy work on your part."
Strzok replied, "Lisa you didn't see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1) trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save [the lead agent's] voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon."
Wednesday's revelation included notes of a meeting conducted a short time after the 2016 election between FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The notes stated, "What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
The notes were written by then-FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap.
May 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.comAuthored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,
Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.
The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")
But that was then. This is now.
Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.
All that's left is to discover how this all happened.
Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms large since he felt personally under attack.Writing on the Wall
Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family.
Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack Obama may have played.
But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former president had committed crimes. Barr replied:
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on others."
In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."
Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?
The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI attorney Lisa Page:
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.
Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY
Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"
Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").
For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate, see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston":
(The entire debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video as big as a bummer as the commentator did:
"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will do ." (From "Clamity2007")
In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.
... ... ...
Uncle Frank, 40 seconds agoQABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)
So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.
But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and derision.
Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already brain-washed.
They don't get that, I guess.1911A1, 55 minutes ago
There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA.
General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign agent.
And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge transport spot for heroin into the EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug trade.
Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.Question_Mark, 43 minutes ago
The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency manipulating the public discourse?1surrounded2, 1 hour ago
4AM secure drop from Senior Executive Services ( SES ) is a threat to our democracy.
Our greatest responsibility is to serve our [insert name of community here] community.Moribundus, 3 hours ago
" It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack Obama may have played. "
Come on, Ray, I know you are not that stupid, but you ARE that libtarded.
Obama's very obvious role in all of this: KINGPIN .Moribundus, 3 hours ago
Amazon.com The American Mission and the 'Evil Empire' The Crusade for a Free Russia Since 1881 (8580000721935) Foglesong,
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."Kidbuck, 5 hours ago
America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago
Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles free and farts in his general direction.Save_America1st, 9 hours ago
Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters' game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.Posa, 9 hours ago
Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????
For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.
And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.
And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.
Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3 years now???
Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years, right???????? I'm sure you haven't.
So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????
We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)
So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War. Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago
The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.
Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.
Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from (((them))).
Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.yojimbo, 8 hours ago
Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate, shall we?
I glance at the MSM, so here is a Guardian article along strongly TDS lines https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/19/will-donald-trump-end-up-in-prison-arwa-mahdawi
It's projection again, implying Obama gate is fake, like Russiagate actually was.. Tough to even want to get through!
May 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , May 18 2020 15:40 utc | 13America: "We demand an investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!"
Why not? It works for gas attacks, chemical weapons poisoning, and airliner shoot downs, so why not biological weapons attacks too?
May 18, 2020 | consortiumnews.com