|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells
|News||Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich||Who Rules America||Recommended Links||Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism||Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization||The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism||American biblical nationalism and religious far right||Economic nationalism|
|American Exceptionalism||Anti-globalization movement||Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers||Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization||TTP, NAFTA and other supranational trade treaties||Neoliberalism and Christianity||Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism||Anatol Leiven on American Messianism|
|Debt slavery||The Grand Chessboard||American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism||IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement||Merchants of Debt||Greece debt enslavement||Eroding Western living standards||Ukraine debt enslavement||Russian nationalists|
|New American Militarism||Predator state||Neoconservatism||Madeleine Albright as a precursor of Hillary Clinton||Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton||Merkel as Soft Cop in Neocon Offensive on Eastern Europe and Russia||Robert Kagan||Wolfowitz Doctrine||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism|
|National Security State||Neo-fascism||Elite Theory||New American Militarism||Christian Theocratic Movements||Financial Humor||Quotes||Humor||Etc|
|And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence.
Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign
trail last year that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that
our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
-- Howard Zinn
Neoliberalism creates powerful nationalistic impulses die to its failure of fulfill its promises. Disappointed, impoverished, and, especially, unemployed people are easy recruits for far right movements. In this sense the situation is similar to Bolshevism, which after being discredited as ideology (which was based on the promise of rising standard of living and eventual overtaking the capitalist West in prosperity) failed to keep the country together because of growing (and lavishly supported both in propaganda and financially by the West) wave of nationalism which swept the USSR into oblivion. Disintegration of the USSR was based on two major factors -- betrayal of the "nomenklatura" which switched to neoliberalism, and abandoning Comminist ideology (in which actually nobody believed after 1970th) and the tide of nationalistic sentiments.
Now nationalism is on the rise in all major Western countries. Such events as Brexit and election of Trump are links of the same chain of events.
Nationalism informs our ideas about language, culture, identity, nation, and State--ideas that are being challenged by globalization and an neoliberal economic order and ideology. Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich is generally hostile to nationalism. It often purposely destabilize the nation-states to open them to transnational corporations ("creative destruction" of sort), the dominant political players under neoliberalism. For example, when the federal government of Canada adopted neoliberal policies one immediate consequence was the termination of the funding programs for the francophone community cultural programs (along with the termination of the welfare programs). Indeed, the Official Languages Act itself was overhauled.
The United States' pursuit of global primacy is based upon a complex melding of neoliberal economics and hegemonic politics which produce strong anti-American sentiments in various part of the globe, fueling nationalism. US imperialism is inherently predatory and profoundly different from the productive capitalism that had been the basis of American economic success. It is essentially a War and color revolutions based racket. It has important difference with classic colonialism: what traditional colonialism tried to achieve with standing armies now is achieved using financial instruments and tiny strata of "comprador elite" within the given country. Putting the nation into debt-bondage proved to be even more effective in extracting resources from the countries then the old colonial rule.
Ethno-nationalism is not the only form of nationalism in existence. Moreover, Ethno-nationalism is in decline, as it is now discomforting intellectually and morally for many people. But two other, more modern and no less powerful forms of nationalism emerged: "cultural nationalism" and "economic nationalism".
As social scientists demonstrated nationalistic sentiments are often a product of culture, often deliberately constructed by the local elite to achieve pretty nefarious and selfish goals. Still the culture can as solid core of nationalism as ethnicity. this new form of nationalism became an important player on the world scene.
Ukrainian color revolution of February 2014 (EuroMaydan), despite surface slogans about Eurointergation, was fought and won by Western Ukrainian nationalists, which later tried to impose their will on the rest of the country provoking the civil war in Donbass (with substantial help from Russia, which decided to support Russian speaking population against Ukrainian nationalists cultural assault). While they were ethnic nationalists in the past, now they by-and-large converted in cultural nationalists, which oppose not Russians as a national by Russian culture and language and try to instill Ukrainian culture and language in the country were the majority of population speaks Russian.
So far the net result was a destruction of the Ukrainian economy due to break-up of Soviet era ties with Russian industries and abandonment of Russian market (while Ukrainian goods are no values as much in Western markets and face various often artificial barriers in EU). In 216 the impoverishment of the population reached the Central African states level (less then $2 dollar a day for the majority of population).
Americans generally are strongly negative to the idea of ethnic nationalism and that's is one of the best features of Americans as a nation. After all, in the United States people of varying ethnic origins live in peace. For example within two or three generations of immigration, ethnic identities of Western and Eastern European immigrants are attenuated by cultural assimilation and intermarriage. In general, immigrants to the United States usually arrive with a willingness to fit into their new country and reshape their identities accordingly. But for those who remain behind in lands where their ancestors have lived for generations, if not centuries, political identities still sometimes take more ancient ethnic or religious form, producing powerful claims to political power. In the past, the creation of nation-states in Europe has often the product of a violent process of ethnic separation.
While the apogee of ethno-nationalism was probably in 1930th and during post war decolonization, ethno-nationalism while in decline still remain a powerful social force in some countries. In many way ethno-nationalism is still linked with national socialism. But traditional national socialism version of ethno-nationalism was slowly but surely replaced by what the form that is based on colon culture and language -- "cultural nationalism". I think that American Exceptionalism is one of the most interesting examples of this type of nationalism. And the fact that US flags in the USA are everywhere definitely signify its strength in mind of the people. Unlike many European state were driving a car with the national flag would be considered bad manners, in the USA it is OK behaviour.
The US elite as the leading imperial elite that overtook British elite on the world stage achieved great mastery in using divide and conquer strategy by inciting nationalistic feelings all over the world. This mastery (despite Bush "Chicken Kiev" speech) was especially demonstrated in facilitation the break-up of the USSR. It was nationalism that had blown up the USSR when it started experiencing economic difficulties and crisis of the political doctrine under which it was created as well as suffering from the losing Afghan war.
It is interesting to note that the crisis in the USSR was amplified due to supply of modern technology. Personal computers inside the country which broke traditional hold on distribution of literature by Communist Party (which rules the country as a religious sect, crushing even minor deviations form holy doctrine), were very similar to Stringers hand held missiles in Afghan war, which deteriorated Russian air superiority, and limited the use of helicopters (with a pretty nasty effect 30 years later). This along the money with which the USA and Saudi financed radical Islamic fundamentalism converted Islamist revels it into a powerful political force. Political Islam was if nor born then strengthens in Afghan war. Which paradoxically is another example of "cultural nationalism", were the religion serves as the cementing force and identification of us vs. them. .
People often forget that Osama bin Laden was essentially a recruiting agent on Saudi Intelligence payroll during the USSR Afghan war. In this sense tragedy of 9/11 was simply a blowback of previous efforts to defeat the USSR in Afghan war by whatever means possible. And one of those means was spreading of Wahhabism and what can be called "Islamic cultural nationalism".
As author of the note Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? observed:
I would indeed go further and say that Islamic schools infuse a dangerous and un-Islamic Islam-supremacist, and indeed now sectarian Wahhabi-supremacist view vis-à-vis all other religions and cultures and this is at least partly responsible for many of the problems Muslims face around the world today.
In other words with the ascendance of neoliberalism nationalism re-emerged as a powerful countervailing force. Brexit was just the first powerful manifestation of this effect.
likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PMNeoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:
1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.
2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians
3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalism that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.
So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.
In the post-Second World War period until 1989, superpowers were committed to upholding existing state boundaries. While decolonization was permitted, the borders of states were treated, in international law and practice, as permanent—non-negotiable—features of the international state system.
Secessionist movements are based on groups that have a strong national identification, and are fuelled by nationalism. Minority nations, in multination states, often criticize state policies on the grounds that they implicitly privilege the majority national group on the territory. They have resisted majority control over certain aspects of state policy, and have made claims for state protection of their culture or for recognition of their distinct identity. This usually means that they want their language to be used in official capacities and their children to be educated in their language and about their culture. They typically demand their own political institutions, to enable them to control their own affairs.
As a political principle nationalism postulates that the political and national unit should be congruent. That naturally leads to secessionist movements. It has many variations and in weaker form presuppose the moral significance of the national community, its existence in the past and into the future, and typically seeks some form of political protection to safeguard its future existence.
One advantage of viewing nationalism as a normative theory about the value of national membership and national communities is that it can account for the key policies or demands of nationalists. On this conception, the demand for national self-determination is an important plank in many nationalist movements although not, contra Gellner, a fundamental principle of nationalism. Nationalists may, and often do, seek complete independence or state sovereignty. However, in some cases, where the costs of independence are too high, or the benefits of independence too precarious, nationalists may seek other forms of institutional recognition.
,,, ,,, ,,,
the category 'nation', like 'friends' and 'lovers', falls into the second group. It is contingent on its members' sustaining a certain image of it based on their perceptions and feelings—although of course there are a number of conditions which lead to the construction of an image of a nation, such as shared religion, language, law, geographical isolation, colonial policies, bureaucratic decisions, and the like.
... ... ...
David Miller lists five elements that together constitute a nation: it is, he writes 'a community (1) constituted by shared beliefs and mutual commitments, (2) extended in history, (3) active in character, (4) connected to a particular territory, and (5) marked off from other communities by its distinct public culture'. 12 This definition also suggests that the subjective identification is crucial.
... ... ...
One common line of argument, associated with the work of Gellner, Anderson, Hobsbawm, and others, is that national identity is linked with broad historical forces. National forms of identity become prominent in the modern period as a result of industrialization, and the social and bureaucratic changes that accompany industrialization—or precede it, in the case of states aspiring to be industrialized. In Gellner's formulation of the argument, the modern economy is crucially dependent on standardized modes of communication and cultural practices, and people's life chances are shaped by the language in which they communicate, as well as other cultural forms of interaction. This is in contrast to the premodern period when cultural or linguistic differences were politically irrelevant.
That means that the language and culture became the most important components which defines the boundaries of national identity, while all other characteristics that define nationality, such as specific for given ethnos DNA, receded. That consideration gave rise of élite-manipulation models of nationalism. They view national identity as the product of actions by political or economic élites, who foster national identities for their own (self-interested) ends. More sophisticated élite-manipulation theories describe élites as encoding violence or antagonism as ethnic or national which could be described in other ways—as criminal or class violence, say—for their own ends. Nationalism is merely a means for élites to preserve or enhance their own power and status in the society. This is a variation of the old Plato's argument that the masses are easily duped and so cannot steer the ship of state. The fact that nations are socially constructed does not suggest that they are less real or are to be regarded with suspicion. Some people focus on the fact that they are 'imagined' communities to suggest that they may have no basis in 'reality'.
The social image is important because it is impossible for all its members to engage in face-to-face contact with each other at all times. Therefore members must refer to their perception of the image of the nation. Of course, on this definition, many, if not most, communities, except the very smallest, are imagined in the same way. Religious communities are imagined; my university is imagined; even my extended family is imagined. 26 But they may all be important, and legitimate, bases of identification.
That means that it is more accurate to describe national identities as existing along a continuum, with the language, the habits or customs or character of the group on one end and the institutional structure of state on the another. For example, in immigrant societies such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, where groups of people left their various 'homelands' to become part of a different political project, immigrant groups do not have the "national territory" as a basis to reproduce their own culture en masse and the political identities in question—the Canadian, Australian, and American identities — are genuinely available to them, in the sense that the host society did not exclude them from the political project and the political project propose to then a new, "born again" cultural and political identity. In case the have like, for example in Quebec -- their nationalism assumes the forms that are typical for Old World.
Similarly in the case of France, ethnic groups were incorporated or integrated into France prior to the Age of Nationalism, and assimilation was largely effective. There has been some attempt to revive these minority nationalisms, but minority nations typically lack much shared (institutionally separate) history—since Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Languedoc and Burgundy were all incorporated into France prior to 1500. They lack an institutional basis, as well as social differentiation. The nationalisms are accordingly very weak. The French formula cannot be applied to other areas, where separate institutional or bureaucratic structures were in place by the time of mass democratic participation and the politicization of national and cultural differences by the bureaucratic modern state. But the reaction against immigrant communities, especially Muslim community was very strong.
At the same time, as little as forty years ago, Britain was thought to be a homogeneous society, with strong class politics, but little in the way of national politics. Now, however, the conglomerate 'British' national identity seems to be eroding and is challenged by Scottish, Welsh, and to a lesser extent—and mainly in reaction to the other two nationalisms—English national identities.
The issue of rights to territory is also important because one basis of the distinction between immigrant groups and national groups is that the latter have territory and the former do not. Whether a group has territory is therefore crucially important, not only to this conceptual distinction, but it also affects, on at least one influential argument, the kind of rights and entitlements that attach to the groups.
Given the chronic availability of nationalist and ethnic idioms in modern polities, one might expect economic crises to foster heightened nation-statist or ethnic exclusion. Intensified efforts to blame national and ethnic outsiders for economic distress, to protect domestic producers and workers against foreign (or ethnically “alien”) competition, or to treat politically vulnerable minorities as scapegoats. And earlier crises furnish ample precedent for such efforts. This review has suggested, however, that economic crises do not automatically or uniformly generate such responses and that nationalist and ethno-political responses to the present crisis have so far been relatively muted.
The credit crisis on 2008 was mainly interpreted in nation-statist terms and was blamed (outside the United States) on the American profligacy, American-style casino capitalism, the global financial system, or an externally imposed neoliberalism.
Until Brexit nationalist reaction of the crisis of neoliberalism — or reactions with a more or less pronounced nationalist components were not successful outside a few countries such as Hungary and Russia. Legal and institutional constraints, complex forms of economic interdependence, and prevailing cultural idioms have all worked to inhibit radical measures designed to protect domestic producers or labor markets (although more limited forms of protection were widely implemented). Even in the USA, the citadel of neoliberalism, the disenchantment with neoliberalism led to the rise of such politicians as Sanders and Trump.
It is too soon to assess consequences of Brexit on neoliberal globalization, but it is clear that the growing wave of nationalism is able at least to slow if not revert that recent neoliberal "advances" in this direction. If you add coming oil crisis the future of neoliberal globalization now looks more and more uncertain.
As Indonesian Chinese massacre of 1998 proves modern societies are sill not above finding ethnic scapegoats in case of severe economic crisis:
May 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel published (German) reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid, German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them. He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws. They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair. Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter. Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately stepped down and the conservatives ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky opines on the case:Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view. The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian" puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election. Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new far-right block Natteo Salvini will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray put his finger on the wound:The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties – and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people, especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new 'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions, he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes, we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM | Permalink
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jen , May 18, 2019 1:46:55 AM | linkThanks to everyone who replied to my comment @ 25.
I certainly agree with Peter AU 1 @ 33 and 40 that the Western (or more specifically the English) mentality of the period in which the US was founded as a set of colonies and then later became a nation was a significant influence on the US' later conception of its place in the world. The Pilgrims must have certainly felt themselves blessed by God in surviving (with the help of native individuals like Squanto) their early years of crop failures and famines; at the same time they regarded their new environment as theirs for the taking (in their mind-set, God had willed it so) and the native people, being non-Christian, as their enemies. The Pilgrims may have seen themselves as God's Chosen people cast into the wilderness like the Israelites wandering in the Sinai under Moses for 40 years. This is one root of 'Murica's belief in itself as the Exceptional Nation. (It probably also is the root of the Special Relationship between the US and Israel.)
Overthrowing British monarchical rule and replacing it with a republican form of government (and nicking the idea of federal government from the Iroquois confederacy of indigenous nations around the Great Lakes region) no doubt reinforced this self-belief in being the Exceptional Nation. Add to that the territorial expansion across the prairies and the Rockies, then receiving waves of immigrants from northern, central and eastern Europe (mostly German-speaking) through the 19th century, wars (War of 1812 and the American Civil War) in which the British are either the enemy or aid the Confederate States, the genocide of indigenous peoples by the US government in the late 1800s and the legacy of slavery (which American slave-owning states claimed was supported by the Bible) and you have the foundation for a nation that believes that everyone around the world looks up to it for moral and spiritual leadership.
The mentality of a nation founded by people who considered themselves God's Chosen probably also finds unusual parallels in the superhero phenomenon. Most comic superheroes like Superman, Spiderman et al are "chosen" in some way (even if by accident as in the case of Spiderman). They are blessed with unusual powers and make a choice as to how to use their powers, whether for good or evil. They nearly always work alone and if they work together, they don't necessarily collaborate well but tend to work in parallel against evil. Superheroes like Batman work alone (or with a junior partner) aided by loads of technology which require his alter ego to be an insanely wealthy and eccentric industrialist. As Wage Laborer @ 35 says, all this definitely is internalised: I didn't even have to look up anything on Batman to be able to say all this!
May 14, 2019 | www.unz.com
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist Algemeiner reports that "Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London."
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the Holocaust and are by no means 'deniers.' I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" that calls for Israel's destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the Hitlerian concept of an 'Aryans-only state' to accept that the concept of a 'Jews-only state' is equally disturbing.' They should support Israel becoming 'a state of its citizens' and accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour's Secretary Glyn Secker, who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a "fifth column" in the party and asked, "What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?" I would remind my readers that Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive political body that wouldn't accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body. However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of labour MPs whom he labels 'rats' and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are "reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions."
ORDER IT NOW
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election polls . Branding Nigel Farage as an anti-Semite didn't touch the man whose party is polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain's political premiership.
Miro23 , says: May 13, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMTFran Taubman , says: May 13, 2019 at 9:09 pm GMT
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election polls.
In contrast to the 1960's Israel is starting to look unfashionable. Young people feel embarrassed to be associated with Jewish activism and Zionism.
Being unfashionable is a very serious state of affairs. Many failing businesses will testify to this. You do all the tried and tested stuff, and it just doesn't work.@Grace Poole Why is a Jewish only state disturbing? It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.renfro , says: May 13, 2019 at 9:37 pm GMT
Could I move to Iran?
If Israel becomes a theocracy not a democracy, who cares. Look at the neighborhood.
If not Jewish only then what a Jihad state like the rest of the Arab world?
Give Israel the razor blade.
All you dog noses who claim the Jews made a banquet from the holocaust. Just look at the meal the Arabs made from those original 750,000 refugees created by the State of Israel founding war.
Cry me a river. They have an entire UN agency devoted to their every need, and status to 3rd and 4th generation children of the originals not living in the country, who have citizenship else where, How does that add up to the 5 million diaspora pals.
It is all such a game to see Israel go down mostly thru jealously that the Jews came from the ashes of near by extension to create the best country over there.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the problem. No one wants to solve the problem they just want to see the Jews go down. Gilad licks his lips over it.@Fran Taubman "There's always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors -- Palestinians -- who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports," said Tlaib.Anon  Disclaimer , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:03 pm GMT
"And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."
Love it ..just the right thing to say.@Fran TaubmanJames N. Kennett , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:19 pm GMT
Why is a Jewish only state disturbing?
Because Jews hold the establishment of Israel to be a prerequisite for the destruction of all other nations in a final world war, which the Jews seem intent on instigating with Islam. Zohar Shemot 32a.
After which Israel is slated to be the only remaining national power (everyone else being destroyed).
Do not forget your books. We don't.
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
You have your own state but refuse the same to others. You are not Europeans (Brits, Germans, etc) as these were originally ethnic-racial categories before you interfered. Yet you claim them your yourselves as well, and in doing so deny everyone else an exclusive identity.
Jews only allow themselves an exclusive identity, because your "god" (the writing of Jews) only gave Judea a nation. Correct?
Asking moronic questions at this point, which everyone knows the answer to, is insulting. You people are not innocent, are not dumb, and you know precisely why people are hostile to your mass genocidal, supremacist tribe.@Fran TaubmanJames N. Kennett , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:49 pm GMT
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the problem.
At a cost of $9 trillion. Who is going to pay?
Realistically, offer $100,000 per person, or $450 billion total. Double that to include the diaspora Pals, and close the refugee camps. If the resettlement took place over a decade, it would cost $90 billion a year, which could come from the US Defense budget. The latter could be wound down over the same decade, as it would no longer be needed to fight wars on behalf of Israel. Israel would get land and peace; Palestinians would be well compensated; and the USA would be relieved of its duty as a Middle-Eastern warmonger. Everybody wins. What's not to like?
However, to gain approval for the plan in the USA, it would be necessary to show that the expenditure is both worthwhile and an improvement over the status quo . This would mean explaining what the status quo actually is; and how and why it has come about. Unfortunately, this information is so inflammatory that it can never be publicly discussed.anon  Disclaimer , says: May 14, 2019 at 5:59 am GMT
Antisemitism Is Now a Mass Movement in Britain
I don't think this is true. A few years back, Daniel Finkelstein of the (London) Times characterised British anti-semitism as "background noise".
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the "exception that proves the rule". Their support has two cores: radical Muslims, and political activists on the Left. Neither is a mass movement.
The British Left tends to support people who have the most "victim points". Rightly or wrongly, they believe that Palestinians have a lot of victim points and, as the Holocaust moves from living memory into history, that Israelis and diaspora Jews have very few.
Furthermore, the Left particularly seeks ogres who are white and Western. Paradoxically, they dislike Israel because Israelis are similar to Britons, not because they are different. In contrast, massacres by Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or Rwandans never attracted much opprobrium from the Left. The idea of holding people to a lower moral standard, the less they look or sound like oneself, is obviously racist; but it is followed by people who genuinely believe that they are the least racist people on earth.@AnonAntares , says: May 14, 2019 at 7:09 am GMT
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
because most jews, like taubstein, are racist, supremacist hypocritesIsrael's racism is hardcoded into law.nicholas nicola , says: May 14, 2019 at 8:09 am GMTHoorahnicholas nicola , says: May 14, 2019 at 8:14 am GMT
We have moved from the very REAL MURDER of thousands of Muslims by Jews in Palestine
to debating fluff in peoples navalsMillions of Jews have emigrated to the middle of a massive clan of muslims and formed a military enclave which is slaughtering muslims en-mass.Bill Jones , says: May 14, 2019 at 9:49 am GMT
Do you think that the collective memory of The Ummah will forget this?@James N. Kennett "which could come from the US Defense budget"Fool's Paradise , says: May 14, 2019 at 11:58 am GMT
Unfortunately the US doesn't have a "Defense Budget" It has an Attack Budget, and it's not going anywhere but up.The world won't be free until it's a mass movement everywhere. People are finally waking up to this truth: No Israel, no war.Fran Taubman , says: May 14, 2019 at 3:38 pm GMT@nicholas nicola I hope the collective Ummah looks at:mark green , says: May 14, 2019 at 4:15 pm GMT
All of Africa
All of Arabia
Slave labor in Libya
Women's rights in the Islamic world
The entire muslim population in Israel has quadrupled since 1948. I guess the slaughtering of Muslims is not going so well.
You are deranged and delusional.Well said! All Jewry wants is everything.Longfisher , says: May 14, 2019 at 6:01 pm GMT
Jews demand their own exclusive state (subsidized by goyim), the privilege to cleanse their sacred (and expanding) Jews-Only territory of native gentiles, and the right to travel (and live) among the goyim as they see fit.
And don't you dare complain about these privileges. That's anti-Semitism!
And then there's the matter of speech.
Jews not only enjoy top tier access to the MSM (since they've conspired to buy up most of it for the undisclosed purpose of advancing pan-Zionist hegemony) but they actively and openly form teams, lobbies and NGOs to limit the right and opportunity of others to speak freely and assemble lawfully for the purpose of expressing their own political grievances.
Resistance and resentment to the entrenched double-standards that favor Jews, and state-sponsored lawlessness that empowers Israel, is routinely decried as anti-Jewish 'bigotry'. It is also mislabeled as 'anti-Semitism'. This keeps the opposition weak and off-balance.
How very clever. How very diabolical.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism what it is?
So-called 'anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Jewishness (or counter-Jewisness). It is merely an attitude.
Depending upon the circumstances, this attitude might be right or it may be wrong. But 'anti-Semitism' is all about Jews, their behavior, and their impact on non-Jews. Why not focus on this inescapable fact?
And since 'anti-Semitism' is not about 'Semites' at all, the very term itself is something of a canard.
On the other hand, organized Jewry is truly powerful. Sometimes it does real damage. Sometimes it does real harm. Sometimes it destroys. Why can't we talk about it openly?
Calling morally-grounded opposition to the real damage and real harm done by Jews 'anti-Semitism' is a calculated libel.
On the other hand, identifying and castigating organized Jewry for its various sins is vital, courageous, and healthy. So do the right thing.When I was much younger and in Graduate School I hosted three British students who were on a summer sabbatical at the medical college I was attending.Longfisher , says: May 14, 2019 at 6:04 pm GMT
There was no particular reason that the Jews in America came up over beers, many beers (Texans and the British like beer equally well). But they told me that there was and expression among common British about Jews, and, no it's not that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.
It was that "antisemitism is when one hates the Jews more than is absolutely necessary".
Interesting concept, that is."Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism."Fran Taubman , says: May 14, 2019 at 8:32 pm GMT
Yep, absolutely true.
It's not their religion about which folks object. It's not their race, if you want to call it a race.
IT'S THEIR BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@renfroRonnie , says: May 14, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMT
Wrong. At the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter and ally of Hitler. When the two met, al-Husseini told Hitler that they shared the same enemies: "the English, the Jews, and the Communists." The two went on to scheme about how best to set upon and destroy the Jews of the Middle East. What's more, the Arabs regularly massacred Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
Lies are the lifeblood of anti-Semitism, and there's a purpose to Tlaib's false history. It serves to bolster the lie that the Jews waged war on a friendly and welcoming people, stole their land, and condemned them to ruin. Anti-Semitism depends on lies because its very motive is to hide the truth of one's own failings and lay blame on the Jews. The history of anti-Semitism is, in a sense, a history of wicked fabrications: From Jewish deicide, to the blood libel, to the claims of Jewish sorcery, to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to the idea that Jews were tipped off about 9/11, to the claim that Jews push the U.S. into wars, to the outrage over Jews supposedly buying politicians, to lies about Israel's founding.
Tlaib and Omar are exemplars of this tradition, peddlers of anti-Semitic folktales. In addition to spouting revisionist history, Tlaib has accused America's Israel-supporters of dual loyalty. Omar has done that and more, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world into not seeing the evil it perpetrates, and stating that America's pro-Israel policies are simply purchased by those who support the Jewish state.It is a very powerful and accurate expression to say that Israel is "unfashionable" – it is also true that most young people today feel no connection to the holocaust – when Rashida uses the word "comforting" to refer to her people's sacrifice for the Jews, I feel that the customary Zionist response to call these expressions "canards" will also be seen as an unfashionable response. Thank God for brave people like Tlaid and Omar who express distaste for the unfashionable and vulgar behavior of Israel and Zionists. Omar and Tlaib have already emboldened millions of others who share their ambivalence and horror, when they read about the Israel colonist settlers and their brutality to the Palestinians they displace .Curmudgeon , says: May 15, 2019 at 12:27 am GMT@Fran Taubman
It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.
Not so. Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt have Christian minorities that have been protected over the years. Jordan has a few, but not many. Iraq, prior to Israel's proxy war on Saddam had plenty of Christians, including Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's ministers.. Palestine has/had Christians that were killed by Israelis in the same way Muslims were.
Could I move to Iran?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of the Iranian immigration policy. Why not ask the Jews who are members of the Majles? You know, the legislative body with seats reserved for Jews and other minorities.
Like most Zionists, you seem to ignore the part where T.E. Lawrence got the go ahead from the British government to promise Arabs, which included Palestine, freedom from the Ottomans and self rule, in exchange for a revolt against them. That promise was never kept. The philo-Semite mass murderer Churchill is alleged to have organized Lawrence's assassination.
May 03, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
Alex BudarinThe new millennium has seen a marked increase in parties and movements which appeal to racial and ethnic nationalism. What's behind it? I have an idea.
Economic globalization could be a factor, as multinational corporations have shifted operations and production around the globe, to places where labor is cheaper and there's less official concern for public well-being. That's meant the loss of skilled-labor jobs in a number of countries with relatively high wages and state regulation in the name of public interest. There's doubtless anger that such jobs have been lost to Mexicans, Chinese, Filipinos, and people of other nations. But there's also evidence that this racial-ethnic anger is local and less abstract. Something else has triggered highly authoritarian Conservatives, I think.
The studies of Conservatives and authoritarians which I've cited in previous essays [ here and here ] suggested that these individuals are more sensitive to, and more alarmed by, conditions which present them with uncertainty. Any change from the status quo will do that. Consequently, any perceived deviation from the traditional order, with its established culture and hierarchies, will cause them to band together and fight for the status quo ante.
It's my hypothesis that, in many nations around the world, the 21st Century brought with it the increased presence and upward mobility of populations which Conservative/authoritarian citizens considered non-traditional and lower status. Conservative/authoritarian citizens would have viewed these social changes as threats to their traditional cultures and hierarchies, and they would have taken political actions intended to conserve or restore their traditional orders [e.g., to "Make America Great Again"].
Between 2000 and 2015, estimated global migration increased from about 173 million migrants to 244 million migrants, a jump of 41% (if I did the math correctly). Here are the top 10 countries to which they migrated:
Apr 27, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Ishmael Zechariah , 27 April 2019 at 11:00 AMColonel,turcopolier , 27 April 2019 at 11:00 AM
I would appreciate your comments about John Huntsman and his remarks " each of the carriers operating in the Mediterranean as this time represent 100,000 tons of international diplomacy", "Diplomatic communication and dialogue, coupled with the strong defenses these ships provide, demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations with the United states, it must cease its destabilizing activities around the world." Strange words coming from a "diplomat". It might be informative to see the kind of a reception he will get when he returns to Russia as "ambassador".
Ishmael ZechariahIZ A surprisingly crude expression by Huntsman but, in fact, reality in this administration.
Apr 27, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca
The Alarming Rise of Ukraine's Neo-Nazi MPs Since the 2014 "Pro-democracy Revolution" By Shane Quinn Global Research, April 26, 2019 Region: Europe Theme: History In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT
Less than two years ago, the Ukraine's parliament (Verkhovna Rada) voted to outlaw the St George's Ribbon, an emblem often worn to commemorate those who liberated the Soviet Union from Hitler's rule. Up to seven million Ukrainian infantrymen comprised part of the Red Army during their struggle against Nazi Germany, as Hitler was finally broken in the east.
By winter 1943, the once apparently indestructible Wehrmacht was spinning on its tail, their officers with their heads turning about westward, as they gradually retreated towards the German frontiers. Come the spring of 1945, about 2.5 million dead Ukrainian soldiers lay strewn across central and eastern Europe, many of their bodies never to be recovered.
The decision by an increasingly far-right Ukrainian parliament to ban remembrance symbols which commemorate those who fought against the Third Reich is, therefore, a desecration of their memory. It is an attempt to wash over that awful suffering the Ukrainian state endured during the Nazi occupation, with Hitler outlining plans to turn the country into a servile colony of Germanic dominion.
Over elapsing time from the February 2014 US-instituted "pro-democracy revolution", an ever expanding group of neo-Nazis has been elected to office. Notable amid these menacing figures is the far-right military commander Yuriy Bereza (image on the right), an MP since November 2014 who was elected under the title "People's Deputy of Ukraine".
Bereza is a member of fascist-infiltrated party, People's Front, which counts among its prominent MPs the neo-Nazi Andriy Parubiy , Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament since April 2016. In the early 1990s, Parubiy co-founded the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine with fellow extremist Oleh Tyahnybok, that later became known as the Svoboda (Freedom) party.
When, in May 2017, a few of the Ukraine's conscientious MPs objected to moves in banning the St George's Ribbon, Bereza roared down from his parliamentary seat that he would like to "grab a machine gun and shoot those bast*rds". Bereza cuts an intimidating figure. He is a tall man routinely clad in full army fatigues, with tightly-cropped hair, broad shoulders and stern expression.
In December 2018, Bereza punched in the face Nestor Shufrych , an MP with the centre-left party For Life, after the latter removed a poster from the parliamentary podium which accused wealthy Ukrainian politician, Viktor Medvedchuk (image on the left), of being a Kremlin "agent". Medvedchuk is said to be an associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Bereza is familiar with the use of arms. Since April 2014, he has held the position of Dnipro Battalion leader: A fascist-linked unit which has fought Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukrainian regions such as the Donetsk Oblast, an area which rests directly upon Russia's south-western border, and is a mere 400 miles from Volgograd (Stalingrad). The Dnipro Battalion is subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which among other things implements state policy.
Bereza and his regiment were involved in fighting during the autumn 2014 Battle of Ilovaisk, ending in decisive victory for the Moscow-supported Donetsk People's Republic.
Bereza's cause has drawn sympathy and backing from commercial media outlets like the Los Angeles Times, which wrote how his unit "survived on grass and rainwater as they braved five days of incessant sniper fire". The LA Times also quotes Bereza and, despite a heightened risk of nuclear war, the newspaper calls for increased funding to be granted to the far-right battalions.
Over Christmas 2014, Bereza's regiment was accused of war crimes by human rights groups, such as the deliberate starvation of Ukrainian civilians. His battalion has received more than $10 million of financial support from billionaire businessman Ihor Kolomoyskyi . There are photographs of the oligarch shaking hands amiably with Bereza in spring 2014.
Kolomoyskyi has provided critical support too for Volodymyr Zelensky , the Ukraine's president-elect, by guaranteeing him widespread exposure on television networks that the tycoon owns. Kolomoyskyi is one of the most powerful and affluent Ukrainians in the world. His corporate influence extends from the Caucasus of Eurasia to the Appalachian mountains of North America.
In a plot befitting a Hollywood film noir, Kolomoyskyi is presently under investigation by the FBI regarding claims of "ordering contract killings" and "financial crimes", including money laundering and embezzlement. In 2016, Kolomoyskyi was accused of defrauding the Ukraine's largest bank (PrivatBank) of hundreds of millions of dollars.US and NATO's Ongoing Support for Neo-Nazis in Ukraine
Also that year a criminal case was opened in Russia against Kolomoyskyi, purporting that he had organized the killings of civilians. He has been compelled to deny other allegations in the past relating to bribery and abduction.
Kolomoyskyi, who lived in the US for a period and retains vast business interests in states like Ohio and West Virginia, moved to Israel last September – which may well complicate a potential extradition to America, as he also possesses part Israeli citizenship.
Kolomoyskyi has bankrolled other far-right regiments fighting in eastern Ukraine, such as the Azov, Aidar and Donbas battalions. These armed groups have been cited by human rights activists for committing an array of offences, including war crimes – which have gone unpunished – like torture, abductions, possible executions, unlawful detention, sexual assault, etc.
An alarming number of neo-Nazis have indeed been elected to office in the Ukrainian parliament. Over the past five years of what the Washington Post calls "fledgling democracy", the following fascist figures have all enjoyed work as Ukrainian MPs, and they each comprise past and current members of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party: Oleh Tyahnybok, Ihor Mosiychuk, Oleh Osukhovskyi, Yuriy Bublyk, Oleksandr Marchenko, Oleh Makhnitskyi, Andriy Ilyenko, Ruslan Koshulynskyi, Mykhailo Holovko, Yuriy Levchenko, Igor Miroshnychenko, Pavlo Kyrylenko and Eduard Leonov.
The above's presence in the corridors of power has been almost undocumented in mass media reporting. There are other fascists receiving continued employment in the Ukrainian parliament – like Andriy Biletsky , co-founder of the now defunct white supremacist Social-National Assembly. Since late 2016, MP Biletsky has held the leadership of National Corps, a far-right party. This organization is reported to be expanding steadily with Biletsky saying last month that,
"we see how successful our movement is Ukraine is tired of the chaos, it needs new people who will protect the country".
For over two years from May 2014 Biletsky commanded the Azov Battalion, which enjoyed tacit Western support whilst fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Azov Battalion soldiers can be seen in photographs giving Nazi salutes, while flanked with swastikas and other symbols based on SS insignia.
More far-right individuals are holding seats like Andrey Artemenko, a Canadian citizen and MP since November 2014, who claims to be a "neo-conservative" and has membership of the fascist-led Radical Party. The Radical Party leader and MP is far-right extremist Oleh Lyashko , whose militant activities in the east of Ukraine were condemned by human rights organizations, in which he was described as "one particularly errant MP". Lyashko has been accused in preceding months of corruption relating to "illicit enrichment", which he denies.
Among the Radical Party MPs is the briefly above-mentioned Ihor Mosiychuk, a neo-Nazi who is a past member of both the Svoboda party and Social-National Assembly. Mosiychuk, sworn to office in November 2014, is also a journalist and editor-in-chief of the hardline newspaper Vechirnaya Vasilkov.
Serhiy Melnychuk , former leader of the Aidar Battalion, is likewise a Radical Party MP, as he has been since November 2014. Melnychuk is currently under investigation over allegations regarding a false assets declaration, while he has previously been the subject of multiple legal cases and accused of abduction. Melnychuk was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in June 2015.
There are further far-right Ukrainian MPs embedded in seemingly respectable parties like the People's Front. Among them is Ihor Lapin, a multi-decorated militant commander who comprised part of the Aidar Battalion, which draped Nazi-style insignia over its armoured vehicles.
Holding membership of the People's Front too is the aforementioned Parubiy, who has enjoyed trips to America and Canada, and is acquainted with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg . The far-right military figure, Mykhailo Havryliuk , is himself a People's Front member and MP, with Yuriy Bereza as stated also claiming a position in that party.
There are in addition fascists posing as "independents" in parliament such as Volodymyr Parasyuk, a former soldier in the Dnipro Battalion, commanded by Bereza. Parasyuk is a past member of the neo-Nazi party, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. He was elected in November 2014, and still enjoys a place as MP more than four years on. Parasyuk has a reputation for physically assaulting people he does not like, including cowardly attacks on statesman Oleksandr Vilkul and security chief Vasyl Hrytsak, kicking the latter in the head while he was seated.
Boryslav Bereza is a separate extreme right-wing independent MP, and was elected in November 2014; he is a former spokesperson for Right Sector, a fascist party, and despite his surname he is no relation to Yuriy Bereza.
Boryslav Bereza is an open admirer of the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera , speaking warmly of his "three classic principles" in interviews. Moreover, in December 2014 Boryslav Bereza acknowledged that during the fighting in eastern Ukraine, Right Sector provided important assistance for Biletsky's notorious Azov Battalion.
MP Dmytro Yarosh , the one-time head of Right Sector, is yet another neo-Nazi who in the past was placed on Interpol's international wanted list, acceding to the Kremlin's request. Since late 2014, Yarosh constitutes a Ukrainian MP, and for many years he has been leader of the Tryzub (Trident) paramilitary group, whose full title is the Stepan Bandera All-Ukrainian Organization.
In Western establishment dialogue – pertaining to regimes they support – the terms "neo-Nazi" and "fascist" have been virtually erased from official records and reporting. These unequivocal labels are instead replaced with descriptions like "ultra-conservative", "nationalist" and "maverick". The latter ambiguous words blur the lines of neo-Nazism and fascism, sowing seeds of doubt and confusion in the reader's mind. A fascist now becomes an ultra-conservative or nationalist.
There are other post "revolution" MPs who have been part of fascist regiments, like Nadiya Savchenko, an Iraq War veteran and former instructor in the Aidar Battalion. Savchenko is a far-right extremist, and had been held in a Ukrainian jail for over a year until her unexpected release last week – after being suspected of planning a terrorist attack on the Ukrainian parliament building, and intending to overthrow the government. Savchenko still faces trial regarding these claims, and prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko said her departure from prison suggests that the country's court apparatus is "gravely ill".
In June 2014, Savchenko was arrested by Russian authorities, placed on trial, and after long deliberation was charged in March 2016 with complicity in the killing of two state journalists. President Petro Poroshenko championed Savchenko's cause, describing her as "a symbol of the struggle for Ukraine"; and in March 2015 he awarded her the title "Hero of Ukraine", the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a Ukrainian citizen.
Semen Semenchenko , the far-right Donbas Battalion commander, was sworn in as a Ukrainian MP in November 2014. Semenchenko's election to parliament came weeks after his regiment was accused by a UN monitoring mission of executing war crimes on Ukrainian civilians, such as torture, beatings and sexual assault.
In September 2014, Semenchenko had arrived in Washington where he met Congress and Pentagon representatives. That same month he publicly called for US military backing, and enjoyed further visits to America later that year, while he is himself an admirer of Israel. In June 2017, an appeal was expounded against Semenchenko by former Donbas Battalion soldiers, who wanted an investigation conducted after accusing him of criminal acts.
In December 2018, Semenchenko was detained in Tbilisi, Georgia and suspected of "illegal possession and acquisition of arms". He was not arrested due to having a diplomatic passport, and thereafter travelled by airplane to an unknown destination.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Apr 20, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Originally from: Behind the Omar Outrage Suppressed History of 9-11 – ConsortiumnewsJeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.
Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12
I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th century, when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of its empire, would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of oil in the Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars, police, spies, economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or inherited the imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional, ethnic, and religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak compared with the Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one side and massive intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators, and so on on the other.
After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.
But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well.
Apr 19, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Originally from: Behind the Omar Outrage Suppressed History of 9-11 – ConsortiumnewsJeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.
Apr 16, 2019 | www.unz.com
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3) to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia. There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign? Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead, he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors. Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
Apr 16, 2019 | www.csmonitor.com
As people were forming up to stage this year's March 8 rally for women's rights in Kiev, a group of about three dozen young men, clad in dark clothes, started harassing the marchers by tearing off their lapel pins and ripping away their placards.
Some of the men tried to pull away a banner from Mariya Dmytriyeva, a well-known spokeswoman for feminist causes. She resisted. "Woman, why are you so nervous?" they jeered at her. Fortunately, she says, police intervened and separated them.
It's a familiar scene in Ukraine these days, where radical ultra-rightists are an increasingly threatening presence on the streets. "I think that overall these groups are very insignificant in size. But they are very radical and very loud," Ms. Dmytriyeva says. "If they can get away with attacking us like that, it shows there is something dangerous there."
Though few in number overall, far-right groups operate with a high degree of impunity in Ukrainian society, allowing them to harass and attack minorities and human rights advocates without repercussions. Some worry that such groups, given their anti-democratic ideals, paramilitary discipline, and freedom to operate, could have an outsize influence should Ukraine return to political instability. Though the ultra-rightists were given much latitude due to their help protecting the Maidan Revolution and the fledgling government that followed, now they highlight a key weakness of the current system.
"During the Maidan there was a context that was comfortable for [the radical right]. During the war [with rebels in the east], it was very comfortable," says Vyacheslav Likhachev, a historian and expert on Ukraine's right-wing movements. "Today we do not have a context in which a small minority, with street fighting skills, have the means to create instability. But in case there is instability, they are a very dangerous factor."Operating with impunity
Ukraine's far-right groups, some of which include armed veterans of the war in Donbas, are an extremely controversial topic. And despite considerable stabilization in Ukrainian society over the past five years, the danger they pose appears to be growing.
Just a couple of days after the March 8 rally, scores of far-right activists belonging to the new National Corps party attacked the motorcade of President Petro Poroshenko in the Ukrainian city of Cherkasy, injuring 19 police officers . In the past year, far-right organizations have carried out over two dozen violent assaults on women's groups, LGBT activists, and Roma encampments that have left many injured and at least one person dead. It is very rare, activists say , that police intervene as they did in Ms. Dmytriyeva's case, much less bring the attackers to justice.
Analysts say the strength of these groups derives mainly from the weakness of Ukraine's post-Maidan state, or rather its reluctance to enforce law and order when it comes to the depredations of radical rightists. That may be in part due to the role ultra-right fighters played during the Maidan revolt against former President Viktor Yanukovych, as organized defenders of the protest encampment and sometimes initiators of violence against police.
Even more important is their status as war heroes who formed private battalions and rushed to the front in 2014 to battle separatist rebels at a time when the Ukrainian Army was in serious disarray. As a result they enjoy connections with authorities, and a level of social respectability, that would probably not be the case otherwise.
It's important to point out that despite their high public visibility and the apparent impunity with which they act on the streets, the far-right groups do not appear to represent any social upsurge of radical nationalism. Indeed, a joint candidate put forward by five of Ukraine's leading ultra-rightist groups in the March 31 first round of Ukrainian presidential elections, Ruslan Koshulynskyi, won less than 2% of the votes.
Rather, the fear among many here is that if Ukraine's weak state institutions should again suffer any sort of breakdown, these highly organized, disciplined, armed, violence-prone, and ideologically determined groups might punch far above their weight in determining a political outcome.'We are not democrats'
Instability is a prospect that may not be far from the surface in post-Maidan Ukraine. The Right Sector, a militant ultra-nationalist group that played a very prominent role during the Maidan uprising, has since consolidated itself as a political party with an armed wing and a youth movement. It may not be the largest right-wing movement in Ukraine, but it has maintained its revolutionary sense of purpose and complete rejection of the existing order.
"We are not democrats. We participate in elections only because they are a step to revolution," says Artyom Skoropadskiy, press spokesman of the Right Sector party. "We want to change the whole system. New people, new order, new rules in the state system of Ukraine. We oppose Russia, and we are against Ukraine joining the European Union and NATO. We want Ukraine to be a self-sufficient, independent state."
The Right Sector backed Mr. Koshulynskyi's presidential bid simply because it offered an opportunity for political agitation, he says, and the vote tally is of secondary interest.
"Our organization is designed to take power. If circumstances warrant, that could happen by nondemocratic methods. Believe me, we are very capable of acting in extreme situations," he adds. "At the Maidan we had only 300 activists, and look what we did. In fact, if you consider that there was never more than 1 million people participating in the Maidan altogether, out of a population of 42 million, it shows how things really work. The active minority always leads the passive majority. Scenarios change, and we are ready. Our purpose is to save Ukraine."
The Right Sector, and other militant street groups such as C-14 and the newly created National Corps, already pose a real and present danger to vulnerable groups of the population, such as gay and transgender people, women's activists, Roma, as well as any dissidents who might, rightly or wrongly, be viewed as "pro-Russian."
Ulyana Movchan, director of Insight, a nongovernmental group that provides legal services and other support to LGBT groups, says that people who do not belong to these vulnerable groups of the population should wake up and be more concerned about what is happening.
"The problem is that these right-wing activists are armed; they have combat experience. They are organized into illegal military groups," she says. "They are trying to control the streets and maybe, in future, political life as well. We do not know what they might do. They don't just pose a personal danger to certain activists, they are a threat to the whole society."Giving too much leeway to nationalists?
Many Ukrainian analysts argue that these new rightist groups are not "nationalist," but rather racist, intolerant, and extreme social conservatives. But it may be a problem that more mainstream Ukrainian nationalists, such as the Svoboda party – which does not participate in street violence – tend to make heroes of 20th-century "fighters for Ukrainian independence." Those include Stepan Bandera, whose fascist ideology, collaboration with the Nazis, and participation in wartime ethnic cleansing against Poles and Jews makes him and those like him poor role models for modern Europe-bound Ukraine.
The Ukrainian parliament has passed legislation making it illegal to deny the hero status of Mr. Bandera. In Kiev, a major boulevard was recently renamed "Bandera Prospekt." It should be no surprise that groups like the Right Sector model themselves on such World War II-era Ukrainian nationalist fighters.
"We are a Ukrainian nationalist group, in the image of Stepan Bandera," says Mr. Skoropadskiy.
Tensions over these historical issues are real enough, especially in the more Russified eastern Ukraine – where everyone's grandfather served in the Red Army – and they may be part of the explanation for the very high first round vote for Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a Russian-speaker from eastern Ukraine who plays down nationalist themes.
"During the past five years the government made more steps [to legitimize figures like Mr. Bandera] than much of society is willing to accept," says Mr. Likhachev. "Most of society feels we don't need Lenin or Bandera. But you can't really mobilize people politically with these issues. There has been no big public movement against it."
More significant is the strong attraction these new radical right groups seem to exercise over Ukrainian youth. They articulate a cause. They have slick promotional materials and maintain a big infrastructure of sports clubs, training camps, and regular activities.
"I see how many young people want to be part of a movement," says Ms. Movchan. "It's kind of fashionable these days to join something, and here they are with all kinds of tools of recruitment, such as fight clubs, training grounds, and parades. They bring out the worst emotions, like homophobia and racism, to channel their aggression. I wish we could broaden our own audience to show young people there are other ways to be active, like fighting for human rights."
Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast, when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries; Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews', for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism, which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized 'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages' news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents, etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever. In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled. In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565, China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews' represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'. Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their 'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe? It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some 'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage, no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile, bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew) or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires' are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'. His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals, dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews. A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews' do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections. Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial – most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent Jews of principle are abandoning
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
renfro , July 4, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT@jilles dykstraL.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.@jilles dykstraL.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?
The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never left in the first place.
The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).
At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.@renfro
In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, writes:
Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.
Apr 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
swamped , says: March 11, 2019 at 5:06 am GMTMost places you apply to online won't take your overseas application serious, just like I don't take my" pseudonymous fictional interview serious. The Kreutzer Sonata it ain't. All the same, if you have "a Russian husband, who has himself published some essays about some of the unexpected cultural differences a Russian encounters in America", make sure your Zlobin doesn't turn out to be a Pozdnyshev.The Alarmist , says: March 11, 2019 at 12:03 pm GMT
So maybe is true this "Russian concept is that you're safe when you're with the crowd."
At least in some situations. And yes,
"Any touch to an American is taken as a violation of his personal space, so in the U.S., as a rule, people do not take each other by the elbow and do not tap each other on the shoulder if they" do not want to be charged with harassment or domestic vio and end up in American gulag.
But if "to a white guy from the West their politeness felt like fakeness and I was stressed out because of it" then this "is how many black people feel when hanging around white people. What we see as just common courtesy, comes off as" 'microaggression' and 'cultural appropriation' to them. To each his own. And not YOUR own.
No wonder the "biggest breath of fresh air that comes to mind, is the absence of PC culture".
Not a bad deal for 99.9999% of the Earth's population who would do anything to escape it.
Or "if all else fails, just buy a bus ticket [from] Minnesota" to Washington P.C. & see what it's like to live in Tel Aviv for two years.One of the more endearing compliments I ever received was from an old Russian girlfriend, who told her friends, "He's one of the good ones he has a Russian soul." She and her friends were just as described above, generous to a fault despite what was an obvious wealth gap.Digital Samizdat , says: March 11, 2019 at 12:50 pm GMT
But the funniest thing she ever did was to use her bare hand to kill a cock-roach that had dared to cross our table at a restaurant.
Should have married that girl. Then again, I might have dodged the Babooshka bomb. Interestingly enough, she had no desire to ever go to the US, so that was not a part of the calculus.
Have some sympathy for our poor consular officers abroad they spend far too much time face to face with the wretched refuse of the world trying to scam their way into the US.republic , says: March 11, 2019 at 11:08 pm GMT
The thing is, I don't want a "benevolent dictatorship" like Singapore or Russia. I want to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
Pick a number: everybody wants to "live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended," probably even the Founding Fathers themselves did. But is seems that all our governments just end up being dictatorships sooner or later anyway; so that being the case, I would prefer a sane dictatorship (like Russia or Singapore) to an insane one, which is what we Americans have at the moment.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort. Why not make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for a year instead?
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in Somalia for a day.
LOL!!!@yurivkuThe Alarmist , says: March 12, 2019 at 8:49 am GMT
- Russian tourist visas are a little complex, best to use a private agency. Cost should run around $200-300, takes about 10-14 days. Can get a multi entry visa good for 5 years with a 180 day stay per visit.
- One can enter Belarus without a visa for up to 7 days if flying into Minsk.
- Now also possible to stay in Belarus for 30 days during certain sporting events, same in Russia
- Ukraine is visa free for most citizens of advanced countries.
- Tourists on ships can stay up to 72 hours in St Petersburg@Digital SamizdatRabbitnexus , says: March 12, 2019 at 12:35 pm GMT
I lived in the "benevolent dictatorship" of Singapore, and it was pretty nice: Clean, orderly, low-crime, prosperous. Since I worked and didn't engage in socially unacceptable behaviour, it was very accomodating and Big Brother Goh left me more in peace to go about my life there than my crazy jealous girlfriend, Uncle Sam. In some ways, it is much freer.
I went back a few years ago to visit, and while waiting for the light to cross the street, the guy next to me threw a piece of trash on the ground, so I looked at him and said, "You wouldn't do that if Lee Kuan Yew was still in charge." He sheepishly picked it up.I reckon you're young and mixing with a set a bit more affected by Western media propaganda than they or you realise. Some of what you write about your adopted home comes across as a bit churlish as well. Also a couple of years is no time at all to get to know any place let alone the culture.Rabbitnexus , says: March 12, 2019 at 12:46 pm GMT
I've spent 3 times as long on average getting to know my new homes and they were no more distant than Denmark on one occasion.
I'd say I barely reached a plateau of understanding and appreciation after a cycle of admiration, loathing, frustration and finally reappraisal after 6 years!
Given Aussie and Danish cultures are very similar in many respects, that suggests 2 years for a Westerner in either Japan or Russia is way too little. I'm taking what you say on specifics with a grain of salt but the overall message the gist of it is accurate all the same.
Still I'd like to see you cut those apron strings to yankee land before seeing too much more of your advice about other cultures. I mean that, I'd like it because your insight is interesting all the same, you are clearly smart and thoughtful so this is not an attack. In my experience you have not even begun to scratch the surface until you begin to dream in the language of your new home.
I'm currently trying to find communion between my Western and South Asian culture of my wife and after 7 years am far from getting it. This is due to living in my country not hers though.
I'd say six years is about the mean for getting the hang of a new culture if as you are living it.@CoffeeCommandojbwilson24 , says: March 15, 2019 at 9:36 am GMT
You should see the guy who works for me in marketing. More metal crap in his face and small scooter rubber tires in his ear lobes as best I can tell, than you'd want to know about. Absolute freak show brother. He is unfortunately also extremely intelligent and competent at what he does. I say unfortunately because if his performance matched his appearance it would be easy to say bye bye, but fact is he's brilliant and a nice bloke too. Beats me why this kid would do this to himself.
He's a very handsome young man with mixed Chinese/Aussie parents. Yet his face looks like a junkyard tossed across a picturesque park. It would make more sense if he was gay but he is even straight, just like this kid writing the article appears to be. They don't even look like men when they do this, so it beats me.@Linh DinhPlato's Dream says: March 26, 2019 at 1:59 pm GMT • 100 Words
I've spent a lot of time in both, although last time I saw Ukraine was 3 years ago. The food in Ukraine is great, Russia well, horrendous. Peasant food, basically, and not particularly good peasant food either. There's a markedly different feeling in Ukraine these days, losing population like mad, poor economy, etc.
To understand Russia you have to see the other cities. You can't just go to Moscow and St Petes. It's a huge country, some parts of which are decaying due to migration and demographic collapse (e.g., Perm). Other parts are vibrant and fun. I've seen about 1/3rd of the larger cities, but never Siberia or the far East, nor Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia/Adygea. Hard to travel to some of those places as a foreigner.
I like Ekaterinburg, but my wife refuses to move there.
If you think that Russian food is bad, you are either an idiot or don’t know what to order. If you go to Omsk and order sashimi, you are going to be disappointed. But native Russian dishes such as solyanka, borsch, kulebiaka, kholodets, etc etc are excellent. Not to mention the Georgian and Uzbek dishes that are as common in Russia as Mexican and Chinese are in ‘Murika. And you can eat well in a workers’ cafeteria, not just in an expensive restaurant.
In all other respects, you can’t even begin to compare Russia and Ukraine with a straight face – be that infrastructure, law and order, average incomes etc. It’s like Barbados and Jamaica – both speak English, both are in the Caribbean; but that’s where the similarity ends.
Anatoly Karlin , says: Website March 15, 2019 at 11:20 am GMTMostly correct, though:Jake , says: March 15, 2019 at 11:25 am GMT
Maybe they are. After all, I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do.
Overly optimistic. Such episodes are very much the exception, not the rule.
The authorities are trouble averse, so they tend to turn a blind eye to Caucasian malfeasance.
The sound waves are not uniform, but rather polarized sharp spikes. Blaring techno with bone rattling bass at 3AM. Screaming couples at 1AM. Hammering and drilling at 9AM. I finally figured out why. My girlfriend's brother told me that there's no word for "privacy" in Russian.
... ... ...
However, you should note that 11pm – 7am (I think, I might be off by an hour) are supposed to be "quiet hours" in Moscow and you have the right to complain to your neighbors about their noise, and, if they do not desist, to contact the police.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: March 15, 2019 at 8:34 pm GMT"Maybe they are. After all, I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do."
America used to have people like that. Primarily they were southerners. Secondarily they were European Catholic immigrants and the children of European Catholic immigrants. And then the Yank WASP Elites and their Jewish BFFs spent decades and billions of dollars forcing those people to start thinking and acting like WASP peasants bowing to the Anglo-Zionist Empire.That was F*$&#@ awesome!
Where can I personally meet this hip, tell it like it is Vietnamese guy and some of his subjects?
I love the way –Michael Kreutzer (28-years-old) just sums up the eternal Russian way of thinking about alien rapists, Islamic terrorists that sort of thing:
" I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do. The immigrants from the CIS countries know this and behave."
Yep, I'm 25% Russian, more like 15% as I had some German Nordic Russian nobility on that side. This Slavic gene is always there to call BS on idiot Liberals or worse Libertarians that want to talk, talk, talk make excuses for the worst Paki sexual groomers. Nah, the Russian way is better.
Daisy , says: March 16, 2019 at 8:27 pm GMTJust realistically looking at all the places I have lived, the US would be the last place I'd go to, it's an empire in decline. Morally, spiritually, economically, politically educationally and socially. (And I have lived in the US for 20 years) The only part of American life that seems appealing is the kind of homesteading movement that is occurring in some states.polaco , says: March 17, 2019 at 7:51 pm GMT
Whatever beefs one may have with Russia or Putin, corruption, noise, etc. The fact is Russia is holding it's own and improving its diplomatic relations and increasing it's allies and trade partners, has become militarily a force to be reckoned with and therefore more secure, it has become more self sufficient in many areas such as agriculture, is improving it's infrastructure, people are earning more, it has almost no external debt, huge reserves of gold, is beginning to attract tourism, is expanding in fields of science, and has the reputation of being a reliable partner.
These things would make it a much better place to be/go then a declining country/empire, such as the US, Europe and possibly China.
As for being poorer or wealthier, I can truly and emphatically from experience state, that wealth does not create or provide happiness. As the author mentions, people in Russia are very generous and family oriented. I think this gives more meaning of life and an overall feeling of well being than striving for more and more income to buy more and more stuff. Especially as particularly in the US and Europe, people are living so much on credit.@jeff stryker
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country
Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't even need to lock their doors, except for areas that are adjacent to urban, Hispanic, or Black neighbourhoods, which they have abandoned and given up on decades ago following the anti American Civil Rights movement. Show me a place in America where garbage trucks don't come every week.
While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated.
Meanwhile in Russia: "If government officials continue ignoring the problem, in a few years the Russians will live in a landfill, as it is now happening with the residents of Haiti"- http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/124947-russia_garbage/ or http://www.pravdareport.com/society/5701-recycling/ .
Americans in the US now total about 55% of the population: Wikipedia says: "197,285,202 (Non-Hispanic: 2017), 60.7% of the total U.S. population"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American , however this number is flawed as they count various non-whites like Berbers, or Turkic people like Albanians, Turks, Kurds, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis as whites.
Then we have: "About 46 million Americans live in the nation's rural counties, 175 million in its suburbs and small metros"- http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ . Which seems to confirm that Americans (Whites) live in either suburban or rural areas.
Apr 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
jeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 1:38 am GMTEMBASSY WILL TAKE CARE OF YOUR SPOILED ASSjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 2:46 am GMT
I've seen loads of American men who blew their wad on hookers and booze at the Manila Embassy trying this.
You'll be on the street for about a month waiting for the papers to clear. Don't expect to be staying with the US Ambassador at his house while you're waiting either, you'll be on the street and in SEA or Eastern Europe (Which is cold as hell) and this is no fun.
The Embassy will make you call relatives in the US and determine that nobody will pay for your return flight.
You'll have to repay the US government for the cost of the ticket and your passport will be cancelled for two years as a punishment you won't even be able to fly to Puerto Rico.
MILITARY SPACE AVAILABLE
One American I knew in the Philippines was named Clinton Macbeth and he was a hardcore drunk and pothead who'd been stationed in the Philippines and figured he would just take military space available on a DC 10 or whatever.
The US GOVERNMENT has now cancelled this program and you cannot take military space available back to your own country.
The US Embassy will, eventually, cover the cost of your ticket back. But they make this a lonnnggg unpleasant process to prevent everyone who wants to be repatriated from simply coming into the Embassy and saying "send me home Business class".
Try sleeping for a week outside a US Embassy. Invariably the US Consular director will tell you "it will take some time for these papers to clear".
Believe me, you won't be flown back in 24 hours.
And the Marine Embassy Guards will then make sure you don't hang around. You'll be giving an appointment at the Embassy about a week after you report in. In the interim. the Marine Embassy Guards etc. will behave like bouncers to make sure you don't come back inside the Embassy.STRANDED EXPAT SEA MODELjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 3:16 am GMT
Ken was an older American from NYC who married a Filipino woman of 23. He was an architect and he spent most of his life savings building a hotel for his wife with the intent of renting rooms to Japanese tourists-which would have set him up for life.
In the Philippines, all property belongs to the wife of the expat under law. He was kicked out by security guard after their marriage collapsed-which May/September marriages in the Philippines usually do.
He was 60 and his wife and her family simply threw him on the road-no passport, money in his pocket, clothes on his back. Ken did not even have ID to prove he was an American. The first night on the road, he was mugged by Filipino street kids and did not have a peso.
Finally, he managed to get his passport. His wife had his bank card and withdrew all his savings by then. A sympathetic American paid his way to Manila where he got his brother to send him a ticket.@polaco POLACOjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 4:26 am GMT
We are invariably male, urban and lower middle class.
A great many American expats are blacks who served in the military or have a pension who can live in an Asian subdivision instead of in low-income housing with crack dealers and gangs.
For lower class whites, it is not so much dangerous as sordid in poor white exurbs or rural areas. I knew one white scrap dealer named Clayton whose son was a hopeless meth addict who beat the shit out of him in his house and robbed him. Opoid addicts in the nearby trailer park burglarized his house. Whiggers spray painted his house. He lived in a gated community in the Philippines with mostly merchant Chinese-Filipino families and was pretty glad to be away from white trash.
I've observed the following about American white expats, myself included.
1) We are generally male. I've never MET a permanent white expat female in Southeast Asia.
2) I've never met a Mexican of either gender or any black woman in Asia. And few in Europe or Dubai. The only Native American I ever met overseas was a female married to an English guy. I've never met a white American woman who was living permanently overseas.
3) The real white trash or Cholos or Hood Rats cannot live overseas. If you are on parole, probation, on welfare or a junkie you cannot get on a plane for 14 hours.
4) On the other hand I've never met a bona fide upper middle class American in Southeast Asia either. Most of the Americans I met were tradespeople-plumbers, mechanics, factory foreman, postal workers, commercial fisherman.
5) Americans under 35 are fairly rare in Asia.
Philippines is not very attractive to backpackers. You meet them in other parts of Asia, of course, but not there.
Overall, your observation is correct. The wealth divisions in the US are so vast that lower class white Americans are essentially living in an internal third world even it is only 20 miles from the suburbs.HOMELESS OVERSEAS : A WARNINGjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 4:51 am GMT
One Brit in Goa I heard of had gotten Indian credit cards and got WAYYY overextended. He also had a medical bill he could not pay. They would not let him out of the country even though he had a return ticket.
When he was sleeping rough one night, some thirsty Indian men who were drunk simply rolled him over and pinned him and 9 of them serially sodomized him.
The Indian Tourist Police called the British Embassy and demanded they do something. So he was repatriated. But he will be wearing adult diapers for the rest of his life.
If you are a foreigner sleeping rough in India or Dubai, you might be raped by prowling queers. Even if you're the toughest MMA fighter if you are malnourished and exhausted from being on the street for two weeks and 9 thirsty sodomites jump you you are going to end up buggered.
PHILIPPINES@AaronB AARON BTruth , says: March 18, 2019 at 5:54 am GMT
I lived in Dubai and the Philippines.
Hands down I was MUCH safer than I had been as a white post-college entry-level Graphic Artist in Phoenix living in Tempe on the border of the Guadalupe barrio.
Born in Ann Arbor and raised in Warren, I've seen black crime.
Asia might be more corrupt and the people materially poorer, but you are far safer in Singapore or ANYWHERE in SEA than in the urban US. None of this applies to suburban whites and hicks from the sticks.
America is not a police state because of the Founding Fathers, but because of Mestizos and Hood Rats and redneck tweakers who can only be contained by a constant police presence. Perhaps Singapore would have slightly more crime if it was not a dictatorship, but not like the US.
I moved to Dubai directly from Phoenix and believe me, riding the public transport there and living in modest-income housing was MUCH SAFER than Phoenix or Warren.
I've been in an expat for 20 years and was never again menaced by Mestizos or witnessed black crack dealers chimping out at a bus stop or was followed by a desperate redneck tweaker.
The average public school in any US city or exurb is MUCH WORSE than Asia. I grew up in Ann Arbor and Warren, hardly the ghetto, and even in these public schools were bad.
Finally, I've worked overseas my entire life and I never had to worry about a pink slip by some HR female who is 23 and was blowing every Frat guy two years earlier because I said the word "fag".
Overseas, you can say what you want (Except about them or their government) and nobody cares. You don't even have to PRETEND that you are PC.@jeff stryker I have personally known of people trapped in Kuwait and Bahrain, federal contractors who got fired and could not leave because of phone bills. Just in limbo on someone's couch hoping someone else would come up with the money from home.jeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 10:24 am GMT
I also know of two female military contractors who got sentenced to TWENTY-FIVE years for selling a few grams of marijuana.@Truth TRUTHjeff stryker , says: March 18, 2019 at 3:17 pm GMT
Kuwaitis will forgive a home brewer making some beer for himself and his expat friends. But if you get caught selling hashish, you are screwed. And to be honest anyone who is dumb enough to sell hashish or smoke it in Kuwait is not intelligent enough to be overseas.
I've known some potheads in U.A.E. who refuted the statement that cannabis is not addictive. In a country where penalties include spending years in jail for a couple of joints, they STILL went out and scored pot.
They don't screw around with debt under Muslim law. If you cannot pay a phone or medical bill, you're stuck. It goes out as a warrant and you won't be able to leave the country through the airport.
You know TRUTH, being an expat is a learning curve. Some people just don't make it and do something INCREDIBLY STUPID like the kid in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS.
I want to add something. The Americans who do these things are mostly white hicks from the sticks who have no idea how to act overseas.@Truth THINGS YOU LEARN IN THE MIDDLE EASTChe Guava , says: March 19, 2019 at 4:34 pm GMT
- Marijuana is not habit forming, which is why so many Westerners cannot even go for six months without risking a MIDNIGHT EXPRESS jail to smoke a lousy joint.
- 4 foot average-looking Filipino women become the sexiest females alive to thirsty males. And sometimes these Filipino women have a penis.
- White hicks who would be white trash by Archie Bunker's standards come to believe they have special privileges because they are American in countries where anti-Western sentiment is right under the surface.
- Someone forgot to tell Kuwaitis that Jews were the chosen people given their arrogance. .
- The brotherhood of Islam does not apply to South Asians. .
- Americans who feel that whites are racist never met an Arab.
- Pakistani workers guzzle perfume.
- For such chaste women, Arab women have more anal sex than Stormy Daniels.
- The desert gets cold.
- Indian food is overpriced in the US@jeff stryker Many good points, although it may be evil (I don't think so) the total block every block of the writing, it is bullshit, sorry, I have no conscience re. Moslems, I have had enough threats to my life from them, have had personal attacks on myself and loved ones, Tarrant was perfectly logical.jeff stryker , says: March 19, 2019 at 4:44 pm GMT
How many Muslims kill and terrorize how many others?
Far more.@Che Guava CHEjeff stryker , says: March 19, 2019 at 5:40 pm GMT
I lived in the Arab Gulf for years, like Truth, and although they are the most openly opposed to Jews, they are not wallowing in porn, poverty, out-of-wedlock single mothers, drug abuse, promiscuity, petty crime, hopelessness.
Whites are increasingly stricken with all of these things. Yet Muslims, who openly detest Jews and Zionism are not suffering these social pathology.@Che Guava DUBAI vs PHOENIXChe Guava , says: March 19, 2019 at 5:55 pm GMT
In Dubai, I never was menaced by street criminals, which was a fairly common experience for me in both Phoenix and Warren, Michigan.
Mestizos in Phoenix had NO motive. They were not menacing or assaulting whites over drug deals or gang territory or even some vague religious reason. "Cholos" as these Mexicans were called, simply enjoyed assaulting or terrorizing middle-class whites for lack of anything better to do.
Whites will complain about the IQ of Mestizos or US ghetto blacks but it is a good thing they are not intelligent enough to be organized criminals like Russian or Italian mafias. If they were capable of building bombs like Muslim terrorists than they would be blowing up buildings over rival dealers selling crack on the street corner.
If you obey the laws in Kuwait or Oman or Bahrain you are going to be safer than in any US city. I know, as well as you know, that if you had to choose between walking around at night in Dubai or LA or Flint or Baltimore, you'll choose Dubai.
Much is made of the drug laws in Arab countries and the film MIDNIGHT EXPRESS but try being followed around by redneck tweakers who are desperate to get more meth.
I'm not discounting terrorism. But America, and I cannot speak for other countries, will never face the threat of extinction from Muslims.
The occasional terrorist threat does not destroy a country as fast as narco-economies run by warring gangs of Hispanics or feral inner-city blacks.@jeff stryker Asia always has nepotism, my experience, almost half life, it is less. Even the idea that 'Asia' is a term with any meaning, it does not.Che Guava , says: March 19, 2019 at 6:19 pm GMT@jeff stryker Asia always has nepotism, as has Europe, and Jews there, screw you if you don't want toBengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:43 am GMT
Even the idea that 'Asia' is a term is without any meaning, it does not have that automatically. The origin was Roman 'any east of us'.
In Japanese, there is a triple meaning.
Truly reflecting. But I am always to know, now, that most posters here now are Ziomorons, so, there is no point in saying anything,@polaco Albanians and Georgians are a 100% white.BengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:51 am GMT@jeff stryker Hey Jeff, it's me again.BengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:53 am GMT
I also never got all the outrage coming from everyone in particular regarding the "draconian" laws regarding drug trafficking and drugs in general, in the Asian countries, particularly, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines,etc. People keep telling us that these are "victimless" crimes, and that these are non-violent crimes. We all know that is simply not the case.
Drug trafficking is a brutal game, involving kidnapping, common assault, robbery, harrasment and gang wars. It only leads to more criminality as well. Drugs breed criminality. It corrupts the mind of the youth, and it ruins the mind of the single mother who has to take care of her kid, or the father.
It leads to domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and many other things. It makes me quite confused when they, the rabid liberals, try to downplay these things, and claim that these are "victimless" or "non-violent". Also, does the Italian Mafia still "exist"? Why would they, weren't they just the result of discrimination and the sorts and lack of opportunities? One would think that kind of stuff is all gone ..
Cheers@Che GuavaBengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:59 am GMT
Tarrant was perfectly logical.
Would not say that at all@jeff strykerjeff stryker , says: March 20, 2019 at 4:40 am GMT
The brotherhood of Islam does not apply to South Asians.
It certainly does not apply to the low level cleaners and all the deplorables at least. I would beg to disagree on this one. I am very close with many Arabs in that region and friends with others and as are other South Asians who are not working the menial jobs which I have mentioned. Class-ism is very much a thing, and it exists here.
If the Indian guy is a higher class guy, they'll treat you like a brother. This is coming from yours truly ;-) I feel like I would fit right in. I sneer at the peasants and all the deplorables, and we openly joke about them.
Pakistani workers guzzle perfume
This is certainly true, they bathe in that stuff. Ever visited Muscat?@BengaliCanadianDude BENGALIjeff stryker , says: March 20, 2019 at 4:52 am GMT
Lets take Brampton. Italians used to completely run the prostitution, trucking, extortion, drugs etc. in Ontario in industrial towns like Brampton because Anglo Canadians were basically pleasant middle-class people.
Then came Sikhs, Tamils, Jamaicans. But especially Sikhs. Sikh separatists and Tamil Tigers were not afraid of some middle-aged portly Italian men like Tony Soprano scarfing down pizza at a strip joint.
By the end of the eighties, the Italians simply decided to move into white-collar fraud like "Pump and Dump" stock scams. It was not worth getting their asses shot off by crazy gun-toting Sikhs or Tamils who would tie someone to an anthill just to prove that nobody's life mattered to them but their own.
This is why Crips and Bloods and Mexican street gangs never got a foothold in Vancouver or Ontario. Sikhs and Tamils have a reputation for being bloodthirsty maniacs that even redoubted US gangs avoid.
The same occurred in the US, really.
As for drugs, anybody who has walked through East Vancouver once has seen the end-result of a decriminalization.
That is not to say that drugs will not be consumed in Muslim countries. I've known hashish smokers my entire time in Dubai and even chewed Khat once with a Yemeni taxi driver to see what it was about (It has the kick of three cans of Red Bull but lasts longer).
But pot smokers and Khat chewers in Dubai or U.A.E. won't get a gun and try to kill somebody to get more. For one thing, chronic hashish smokers have no energy and are spaced out. Crackheads in US cities or heroin addicts in Grandville will.
Meth addicts are not so much dangerous as horribly annoying. When I first moved to Phoenix I lived in low-income housing and one meth addict ex-convict simply followed me around pleading for money every time I walked out my front door. Like some kind of stray dog, he also tore through my garbage to get my returnables. When I moved out of the apartment to share a condo with some IT guys, he injured himself breaking into my apartment trying to sleep somewhere and my ex-landlord called me to tell me he had been injured by the window glass.
I was a hashish myself as a young man of course .Like all Goras who are employed in India, as soon as I had my paycheck I got the hell to Goa and got stoned. Every white employed in India will take their pay and go to Goa and buy hashish from some Kashmiri carpet shop.
Goan police know full well that 100% of the Westerners there are smoking pot. Goa is India's Amersterdam.
But in Dubai or other Muslim countries, the police simply don't allow crack houses or staggering half-mad meth addicts. You cannot "corner deal" in Dubai or Jakarta.
Most drug addicts in these countries do not become drug dealers. In Western countries, every regular coke head or stoner ends up dealing to cover the cost of their own use. But in Muslim countries, the penalties for dealing are so severe that very few druggies ever sell drugs. They just remain users.@BengaliCanadianDude BENGALIjeff stryker , says: March 20, 2019 at 11:39 am GMT
Like most demented cowards he was totally logical. He did not approach armed Muslim men and challenge them one-to-one.
He shot unarmed women and children.
This makes sense, because at the bottom of it, on average, white Christian men usually don't have the courage of most other fanatics to be willing to die trying to kill others who are capable of murdering them, like Tamil Tigers.
As a result, Anglo-Saxon terrorism has a sickeningly cowardly streak to it.
The Tamil extremist blows herself up to kill the Indian Prime Minister, for example.
But the white extremist like Tim McVeigh or Dylan the church bomber either sets a fire or like Brevik shoots unarmed civilians and then surrenders, lacking the courage to take his own life even though it is effectively over.@BengaliCanadianDude I worked in Muscat, Oman for several years and lived in Qurm.BengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 2:34 pm GMT
The other 6 and half years of my life were spent in Dubai and I took frequent business trips to Kuwait.@jeff stryker You're not wrong about the Punjabis and Tamils. There many reports or claims years ago during the Sri Lankan Civil War of the Tamil Eelam separatists receiving funding from the Tamil gangs in the GTA( Greater Toronto Area).jeff stryker , says: March 20, 2019 at 3:02 pm GMT
The Khalistani movement in the Punjab has some modest support amongst the natives in India, however, it is well known that most of their support comes from the Punjabi(Sikh) diaspora. The NDP leader himself, a man by the name of Jagmeet Singh, is a proud Khalistani supporter, and he had not disavowed the terrorism espoused by these groups.
He is an open suppprter. And I want you to realize the same guy is the leader of the third largest, politically relevant part in Canada, which is the NDP. Guess his constituency it's Burnaby.@BengaliCanadianDude BENGALIBengaliCanadianDude , says: March 20, 2019 at 5:16 pm GMT
The positive side of this is that US black and Mexican gangs have never been able to get a significant foothold in Canada. Even re-doubted LA Crips and Bloods think that Canadian Sikh gangs in Surrey or Brampton are bloodthirsty maniacs.
Sikh separatism was never possible in India because New Delhi is located in Punjab and the province is also a border state with Pakistan. I've been there.
In my opinion, East Vancouver is what happens when drugs are decriminalized. Anybody who would like to see drugs legalized can visit Grandville and Hastings.
Potheads really are not a threat to the public; they are too sluggish and spaced out.@jeff stryker JeffPhilip Owen , says: March 22, 2019 at 9:12 pm GMT
Thr idea of decriminalization is a bad one, as well as the idea ofbopen injection sites.
Toronto has a couple of these kind of areas if I am to remember correctly, and it's a mess. There have been needles everwhere, which increase the likelihood of infection, and people just don't care anymore. How does it look on the kids, who are shown adults openly injecting drugs? It's a mess. Quite literally as well on the ground.
It discourages businesses in the area, and it brings down the neighbourhoods surrounding it.
Has it solved our problems or Vancouver's? We both know the answer.
The areas that were clean and empty, around these spots have turned into literal drug hubs, and places where violence occurs frequently.
I do think Sikh seperatism was possible at one point, but the Sikh terrorists hiding in the Gurdwara was a turning point. That was put down brutally as I'm sure you remember, which lead to some destruction of that site. All hope was lost when the Sikh bodyguards killed her as well. But at one point, it was possible@BengaliCanadianDude I knew Burnaby in the '80's and early '90's. Decent working class area in transition I thought, although it looked like a place to find hashish even then. I am not really that good on Canada. Mostly Burnaby/Vancouver with a some time in the middle of Ottawa and by lake Erie; my cousin owned a small lakefront palace in Mississauga.Che Guava , says: March 24, 2019 at 4:59 pm GMT@jeff stryker Crap. if it was real, it was real. Moslems have a rape and violent assault party every day they can.Plato's Dream , says: March 26, 2019 at 2:04 pm GMT
This N.Z. P.M? It is interesting how her face is that of a skull. If we knew her name, we may call her N.Z. P.M Skeletor.@Anonymous "But by-in-large, if you look at 1958, and then look out your window today ..Jesus Christ, what the hell happened?"Plato's Dream , says: March 26, 2019 at 9:17 pm GMT
Your generation came to power.@jeff stryker Hell, East Vancouver was full of junkies even back in mid-90s, I assume before de-criminalization Drug deals done in broad light right on the corner of Hastings and Commercial But at the time Burnaby was almost exclusively white – that's where I lived for 2 years so I'd know Indians were all in surrey.Plato's Dream , says: March 26, 2019 at 9:22 pm GMT@Philip Owen I also lived in Burnaby in early 90s when I was enroled at sfu it was a decent if boring lower middle class suburb. The only seedy place was North Burnaby Inn on E. Hastings, the only place for miles to get a beer – where you could get an eyeful at the same timejeff stryker , says: March 27, 2019 at 5:05 am GMT@Plato's Dream PLATOjeff stryker , says: March 27, 2019 at 5:45 am GMT
"Painville and Wastings"
Fiendish killers like Pickton and grotesque pimps like Paul Snider were committing crimes in the seventies and by the nineties the place had the highest AIDS rate in North America.
Most of the druggies are either Natives or from places back East like Ontario or Quebec.
The low-life drug dealers in Vancouver are usually internal migrants from California or Newfoundland who came to Vancouver to ply their trade because. When I lived in Ontario I knew a guy whose Dad had made a great deal of money operating a pawn shop; if you are a drug dealer or pawn shop owner you can get rich at the expense of the junkie populace even if you are a shaved monkey.
My experience in Canada as an American was that the Natives in Canada were worse off than they are in the States.@Plato's Dream PLATOPlato's Dream , says: April 1, 2019 at 9:25 am GMT
I found Natives in Canada to be some of the most dangerous underclass people around. After living in Norther Ontario for two years I was shocked at how brazen their criminality was.
In regards to your gun laws, I had a female friend who accidentally offended some Natives and they brazenly walked over to her house to attack her on her property. She pulled a 22 repeater on them and saved her life (This was in Northern Ontario) but had to move from there afterwards.
Most Americans and perhaps even people from Southern Canada have no idea how dangerous Natives can be.
I don't know why Natives in the US are less of a threat on the street. Maybe because there are less of them.
Canadian aboriginals are also unintelligent. They might even be less intelligent than ahem, other underclasses.@jeff stryker I'm not actually Canadian, I was in Vancouver for 2 years while studying. Didn't have any dealings with the natives (no big loss based on what you say! )Plato's Dream , says: April 1, 2019 at 9:29 am GMT@jeff stryker Well it says something about the place that the main spot to score some drugs was around the entrance to the main public library.jeff stryker , says: April 1, 2019 at 1:16 pm GMT@Plato's Dream I never went to a city with more open drug use or more aggressive homeless people than East Vancouver. Okay, its not Detroit and you won't be shot, but its a bad place.Plato's Dream , says: April 3, 2019 at 8:17 am GMT@Che Guava Well he probably did wonders for Campbell soup salesEric Novak , says: April 5, 2019 at 10:17 am GMT@The Anti-Gnostic The entire American industrial workforce had to be retrained for new work from the 1970s onward, so really, a 28-year-old without a family should be able to train for a career well before he needs his first colonoscopy.
With personal anectodes for perspective, my wife went to med school at 35 and is now a radiologist at 52.
Perhaps you were a Ho Ho-eating degenerate at 28, but the rest of non-alcoholic, non-drug addicted, non-obese, non-mentally ill Homo sapiens seems to adjusts well to the demands of reality and to challenges unforeseen.
Too old for the trades? Really? Have you been to a gym lately-or ever?
Apr 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
Baxter , says: March 13, 2019 at 3:30 am GMT@songbirdjacques sheete , says: March 15, 2019 at 10:50 am GMT
"The idea of a nation where people from all over the world live is a political absurdity. If has no logical unifying basis "
Very well said. Indeed, the United States is not a country, rather it is a government.
And I despise that government.
Things are going to change swiftly after Trump is replaced. The 'coalition of the fringes' is real. It's game over for America. The people living in that country have been too distracted to notice.
America is a deeply delusion society held together by a deeply delusional government.Jake , says: March 15, 2019 at 11:40 am GMT
I want to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
The dude has come a long way, but he's still a bit brainwashed. I should read, "as the f f supposedly intended."
The "founding fathers" did their founding for their own benefit under various "do-gooder" pretexts like everything else power hungry people typically do. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and governments are generally instituted to keep things that way despite the rhetoric and mythology.jacques sheete , says: March 15, 2019 at 12:37 pm GMT"I want to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended."
That is not possible without the conditions that prevailed in the late 18th century, which featured rebellion against the British Empire and therefore against Elite WASP culture.
The slow death of the USA, or shall we say its metamorphosis into the full-fledged Anglo-Zionist Empire, was ongoing no later than the John Quincy Adams election, after the arch-Judaizing heretics Unitarians and Universalists (who were small minority groups even in New England, but were very rich and acted with precision behind the scenes) had gained total control over Harvard, Yale, Williams and several other 'elite' colleges.Curmudgeon , says: March 15, 2019 at 10:43 pm GMT
ps: "It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship" – well, yes it can.
It certainly can, and often is. The mantra is believed due to brainwashing, and Barrett has provided a fine primer on the subject.@Baxter A nation is different than a country. A country is geographical area with boundaries. A nation is the people within a geographical area who have lived together for a long time and have shared experiences. Nation from the French naître – to be born.Low Voltage , says: March 16, 2019 at 4:15 pm GMT
The US, like most other European based populations, was a nation. It has become a country.@Baxterpolaco , says: March 17, 2019 at 7:51 pm GMT
I preferred your "America is a government" comment. America is most definitely not a country. It is an Empire based on usury and militarism like so many before it.@jeff stryker
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country
Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't even need to lock their doors, except for areas that are adjacent to urban, Hispanic, or Black neighbourhoods, which they have abandoned and given up on decades ago following the anti American Civil Rights movement. Show me a place in America where garbage trucks don't come every week.
While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated. Meanwhile in Russia: "If government officials continue ignoring the problem, in a few years the Russians will live in a landfill, as it is now happening with the residents of Haiti"- http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/124947-russia_garbage/ or http://www.pravdareport.com/society/5701-recycling/ .
Americans in the US now total about 55% of the population: Wikipedia says: "197,285,202 (Non-Hispanic: 2017), 60.7% of the total U.S. population"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American , however this number is flawed as they count various non-whites like Berbers, or Turkic people like Albanians, Turks, Kurds, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis as whites.
Then we have: "About 46 million Americans live in the nation's rural counties, 175 million in its suburbs and small metros"- http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ . Which seems to confirm that Americans (Whites) live in either suburban or rural areas.
Mar 30, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , Mar 30, 2019 5:18:08 PM | linkmourning dove , Mar 30, 2019 6:36:14 PM | link
WashingtonBezos Post writers are moronic or drunk."
What ails them is far more complicated and vastly more sinister.
One often hears people say of other countries "It isn't the people of Elbonia whom I hate, it is their government." It may be difficult for some in Europe, where there remains a vestige of an imperative to foster a worldview based upon objective reality, to come to grips with the fact that the problem with America has metastasized and spread to the level of the individual citizens... all of them, to one degree or another. You don't like Trump? Bolton? Clinton?
All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population.
How did this happen to America?
Decades ago while in a leftist organization debate was raised as to how to find valid information to inform ourselves with. It was well understood that the vast majority of the western corporate mass media was a brainwashing operation to keep the masses clueless and supporting imperialist war but, we reasoned, the ruling class itself would need to be kept informed with quality information in order to feel confident that they were making good decisions.
With this in mind we identified journals and sources that the capitalist elites themselves relied upon to inform their decisions.
Things like the CIA World Factbook, for instance, even though created by an organization devoted to disinformation, could be trusted back then to be relatively dependable.
But things change. Note how the Russiagate skeptics in the US were attacked by the desperately faithful: If you focused attention on flaws in the Russiagate conspiracy theory then the general consensus was that you were defending Trump. The possibility that you could be defending reason and truth is still dismissed out of hand. Why is that? Because in America (it's a mind disease spreading to Europe, apparently) truth is relative and reason has become just whatever justifies what you wish to be the truth; therefore, those who propose a "truth" that conflicts with what people want to believe are agents of some enemy.
This condition has arisen from literally generations of propaganda instilling as reality in American media consumers the myth of "American Exceptionalism" . The current crop of American adults have been raised by parents who themselves have been thoroughly indoctrinated in this alter reality. The disease is literally universal across the nation, from lowliest and most oppressed Black transvestites to the CEOs of the biggest corporations.
As prior generations of the ruling elites from the post WWII era who still retained some sense for the importance of objective reality have died off they have been replaced by the newer generation for whom reality is entirely subjective. If they want to believe their gender is mountain panda then that's their right as Americans! Likewise if they want to believe that America's bombing is humanitarian and god's gift to the species, then anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously a KGB troll.
The Washington Post used to be one of the journals that the elites looked to in order to help inform their decisions, but now in the post-truth, or relative truth, world these information sources have increasingly sought to align their information products with the "proper" relative truths that reinforce the myth of "American Exceptionalism" , even if that is in conflict with objective and empirical reality.
To do otherwise would be to aid and give comfort to America's "enemies" (do keep in mind that America is a nation at war - has been for decades - and that workers in the corporate mass media are very much conscious of their roles in that ongoing war effort, to the point that they see themselves as information warriors fighting shadowy enemies that only exist in their own relative reality bubbles).
WashingtonBezos Post writers are not moronic or drunk. They are delusional . They are in the grips of a delusion that afflicts the entire United States, and portions of the rest of the world as well.
Some Americans have broken free from this Matrix-like delusion, but the numbers remain somewhat small... certainly less than one or two percent of the population, and those who have broken free of the delusion will never be given a soapbox to speak to the rest of the population from by the corporate elites.William Gruff @33
I think you have wildly underestimated the number of Americans who are very aware of what is going on with our country and the world. More than 40% of eligible voters elect not to participate in elections realizing the futility of it, and withholding their consent to this regime. It's a feature of propaganda to engender feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and feelings of isolation by falsely portraying a consensus among the population for the policies of the regime. Resist!
Mar 26, 2019 | www.unz.com
March 25, 2019
In a recent thought-provoking article Gideon Levy, probably one of the last genuine Israeli voices for peace, claims that "It is not Netanyahu who is responsible for Israeli 'racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness, incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption.'" Behind Netanyahu, Levy says, there's a nation of voters and other elected officials that aren't very different from their leader.
"Simply put, the people are the problem There are those who have hated Arabs long before Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything."
Levy reaffirms the observation that I have been pushing for two decades. The problem with Israel is not of a political kind . The conflict with the Palestinians or the Arabs is not of a political nature as some delusional characters within the Palestinian solidarity movement have been proclaiming for years. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state. In order to grasp Israel, its politics, its policies and the intrusive nature of its lobby, we must understand the nature of Jewishness. We must learn to define the differences between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). We have to understand how those terms are related to each other and how they influence Israeli and Jewish politics globally.
Levy writes that "there are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that international law doesn't apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do anything, simply because it can."
In order to understand what Levy is referring to we must dig into the core of Jewish identification and once and for all grasp the notion of Jewish choseness. Levy contends that "racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won't even be dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister's racism." Netanyahu as such, is not the disease. He is a mere symptom.
ORDER IT NOW
The devastating news is that neither the Israeli 'Left' nor the Jewish so-called 'anti' Zionist league are any less racist than their Zionist foes. The Israeli Left pushes for a 'two state solution.' It crudely ignores the Palestinian cause i.e. the Right of Return. The Israeli Left advocates segregation and ghettoization; not exactly the universal message of harmony one would expect from 'leftists.' Disturbingly, the Diaspora Jewish 'anti' Zionist Left is even more racially exclusive than the Israeli Right. As I have explored many times in the past, Corbyn's 'favourite Jewish political group namely, Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is a racially exclusive political cell. It wouldn't allow gentiles into its Jews-only club. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is no better. It will happily take donations from Goyim but will never allow those Goyim to become its board members.
Levy proclaims that "Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics – you can dump everything on him." But in his most astute observation, which has been explored before by Uri Avnery (may he rest in peace) and yours truly, Levy continues, "It would be great if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the country's basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it's doubtful he ever will be."
Levy points at the core of the Zionist failure. If early Zionism was a promise to civilise the diaspora Jew by means of 'homecoming,' Israel happened to do the complete opposite. Not much is left out of the Zionist promise to make the Jews 'people like all other people': as Israel is about to perpetrate another colossal war crime in Gaza, we have to admit that we are dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
Bloody Bill , says: March 25, 2019 at 10:30 pm GMTAnother good one Atzmon. I thinks it's hard for people to grasp outside of Israel the connection you speak of between the religion, the people, and the ideology. Its underreported for obvious reasons in the media, plus the control the Israel lobby and its donors the Adelsons, Sabans, and Singers have in the US on what people hear about Israel and its citizens. All you hear is it's a democracy among hostile states that hate it because of freedom or democracy or whatever propaganda speak the mouth peace for Israel/Zionism media uses. You never hear about Israel's and its citizens actions that cause it just the eternal victim status they have been awarded.A123 , says: March 25, 2019 at 11:28 pm GMTViolent Islam is the Disease, Resistance Leaders are the SymptomHaxo Angmark , says: Website March 26, 2019 at 12:11 am GMT
The author makes a good point. Netanyahu is not unique:
– Modi resists violent Islam in Kashmir.
– Jinping resists violent Islam in Xinjiang.
– Orban resists violent Islam in Hungary.
– Trump resists violent Islam in the U.S.
– Netanyhau resists violent Islam in Israel.
And, there are more cases not in the list above
Islam views all non-Muslims as infidels. Violent Islam wages Jihad until the infidels are killed, converted, or willingly submit as Dhimmi slaves. Until Islam changes, Resistance leaders will continue to protect their people. Perhaps the collapse of the Iranian government and its funding of terrorism will open the door to that change.
Israel started as a far left venture where the people lived in true communist shared estates know as Kibbutz. Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed the people into a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive.
The upcoming election makes no difference in Israeli survival strategy. Netanyahu's only serious competitor, Benny Gantz, openly states he will fight Iran's violent Islamic expansion in Lebanon & Syria (Iranian Hezbollah) and in Gaza (Iranian Hamas).
https://www.timesofisrael.com/gantz-vows-to-resume-targeted-killings-of-hamas-leaders-if-necessary/Zionist racial nationalist occupation of PalestineSaggy , says: Website March 26, 2019 at 12:19 am GMT
would be just fine if
it weren't based on ZOG in America.
that's the core problem. The Chosen are in fact
who cannot live without a Host that
they insist on destroying.Reg Cæsar , says: March 26, 2019 at 1:24 am GMT
we have to admit that we are dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
Stay tuned next week when Atzmon will address another raging controversy, and he courageously concludes that we have to admit that water is wet.ariadna , says: March 26, 2019 at 2:08 am GMT
There are those who have hated Arabs long before Netanyahu.
Yes, from the Zagros Mountains to the ports of old Phoenecia to the Atlantic Ocean. Those who they've conquered.First:mark green , says: March 26, 2019 at 4:31 am GMT
Yes, do let's differentiate between Jews, judaism and jewishness (lest anyone be accused of criticizing "Jews the people," which is something only an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew might do, isn't it?).
The Jews are the people, judaism is their deeply inculcated worldview and ethos, and jewishness is their inherently logical behavior.
Or the Jews are the computer, judaism is its operating system and jewishness its applications.
Or the Jews are the rice, while judaism and jewishness are the white on rice.
The zionism did NOT fail to deliver its promise to make the Jews "people like other people." It is Atzmon who fails to understand that the Jews' definition of "people" ("nations") is based on the very Jewish worldview of the model: irrationally hateful, brutal, greedy, covetous, and ruthless "winners." I would say zionism succeeded remarkably well, but it had eager students to start with.@ariadna Ha! Very well said.Anonymous  Disclaimer , says: March 26, 2019 at 5:33 am GMT
Mr. Atzmon has painted himself in a corner on this otherwise tough editorial. But let's give him some credit. Gilad's taken a hell of a lotta heat for his rough and penetrating criticisms of the Zionist colony and its endless deceptions. And he (generally) pulls no punches.
But when all is said and done, and all the hairs are split, and all the (overdue) debates are finally finished (and we can somehow separate the 'racist' Jews from the good, 'humanitarian' Jews) we are nevertheless left with a core Jewish identity that puts God's Chosen People forever and eternally above the rest of humanity. God says so!
Basically, the problem is that Jewishness and 'Jewish supremacism' are pretty much one and the same.@Haxo Angmarkanimalogic , says: March 26, 2019 at 9:13 am GMT
The Chosen are in fact parasites who cannot live without a Host that they insist on destroying.
Bingo. Crazy, isn't it?@A123 "Israel started as a far left venture Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed the people into a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive."jacques sheete , says: March 26, 2019 at 9:16 am GMT
I wonder why the Palestinians employ violence ? Of course, the State of Israel was born out of terrorism (King David hotel, multiple assassinations etc) & ethnic cleansing (ie Nakba ). And yes, the Palestinians were also violent.
As for Israel's "survival" -- that's been a none issue since the late 70's, at a minimum. Israel with its 100's of nuclear weapons & it's US body guard has NO survival issues. It's all the poor bastards around them who have survival problems : (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iran, Libya etc)@A123 Uh-huh.neutral , says: March 26, 2019 at 9:54 am GMT@A123Fidelios Automata , says: March 26, 2019 at 1:14 pm GMT
Orban resists violent Islam in Hungary
Typical brain dead Hasbara nonsense. Orban resists third world immigration, which I support, the problem is about mass non white immigration not Islam. The ultimate problem is the jew, it is they that push for mass immigration and miscegenation the most.My biggest problem with Zionism is that so many Zionists are hypocrites who want every nation to have open borders -- except Israel!Christo , says: March 26, 2019 at 2:43 pm GMT"Simply put, the people are the problem"anom , says: March 26, 2019 at 3:25 pm GMT
And the rest of this article just goes on and on about how evil , Israel, Israelis are , and as to how they are self-justified and unified in being so. And this is a Jew writing this.
Wow. What is the world to do? Doesn't seem to be any other option or solution, except a trip to Wannsee.@A123 Dancing Isreaeli said to the cops:" We are not your problem . Arabs are "anom , says: March 26, 2019 at 3:32 pm GMT
This guy is shouting at China India Russia and at the God : Israel is not the problem Its these Muslims.
Question is this : will these guys be allowed on the graves of the 911 victims strewn all across the world- Germany Soviet Russia, Poland, American rust belt, WW1 and 2 British cemeteries?@Fidelios Automata That's it?m___ , says: March 26, 2019 at 9:10 pm GMT
When did they say something that turned out to be true?
Having said that, the world would be a better place if they ended up destroying elite run US UK . Yes they would cut the branch on which they are sitting . But they would jump the ship just before taht happening
You know Albert Sasson whow as knighted , who married in Riothchilds family, whose grand son / nephew or another Sasson – by name Amery gave us the Balfour in part . He was thrown out of Iraq court for corruption He made it to Raj's India and planted the seed of opium That soon ate up all the available fertile lands of north India . The opium made him rich made India poor corrupted British Raj and led to Chinese deprivations rebellion and to communism@neutral Regardless, Jews (definition as provided and all three facets) are the most coherent group globally. They can muster the most coordination, the strongest drive, the detachment and loyalty, add as needed,WorkingClass , says: March 26, 2019 at 11:50 pm GMT
Since everyone here on unz likes thinking in bursts, to the matter. That makes for success. No reason to whine about for the loosing party, the WASP, traditional US elites. If some other group has ambitions, it should acquire that type of quality identity.
Islam is a poor enemy, as Jews see them as target practice, so should other entities maybe.
Western European descend Whites, and the ambition of enlightenment, (for one, all individuals across ethnic and religious lines being equals), should stow their ambitions of principle until they are in charge. That will require appropriating the same acerbic mindset of the Jew, and not whine publicly about the teacher. White elites have sold out, they are burdened by a commoner population that far exceeds any asset value. To disconnect their base, also made them hostages of Jew elites.
From the point of view of the Euro-descend commoner, non-Jew, unpriviledged, as long as they see themselves as genuine and belonging to the system, the US, and not the trash they are treated as, as long as the non-Jewish middle classes continue their egocentric quest for scraps, they deserve the Gaza they are converted into. No Jew should be blamed for pushing an outsider into demise. The tactics are in the open for grabs, Whites (non-Latino, non-Jew) have only themselves to blame for their demise.I have always thought that Bibi is an ass hole elected by ass holes. So I guess I'm in agreement with this article.
Mar 21, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
The BBC writes :Theresa May has said she "sincerely hopes" the UK will leave the EU with a deal and she is still "working on" ensuring Parliament's agreement.
Arriving in Brussels, she said that she had "personal regret" over her request to delay Brexit, but said it will allow time for MPs to make a "final choice".
At the EU summit the PM spoke to the other 27 leaders to try to get their backing for a delay beyond 29 March.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said Mrs May spoke to EU leaders for 90 minutes and was asked several times what her contingency plans were if she lost the third "meaningful vote" on her deal in Parliament.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that if MPs vote down Mrs May's EU withdrawal agreement next week, the UK will leave without a deal.
May asked the EU to move the hard coded March 29 Brexit date to June 30. She may be given May 23, the day of EU elections, as a compromise but only if her deal passes the British parliament.
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be catastrophic for Britain's economy.
May's withdrawal agreement was already voted down twice. If it comes to a third vote in parliament it is very likely to fail again.
Yves Smith, who you should all read, opens her Brexit sit rep today with this:We've been more pessimistic than most commentators about the likelihood of the UK escaping the default of a no-deal Brexit. We may not have been pessimistic enough.
There is still the possibility that May takes a 180 degree turn, but that would be the end of her career and likely also the end of the Conservative Party:Now there is a popular push for an Article 50 revocation, with a petition already at over 400,000 signatures as of this hour. But as we'll discuss, May would have to do a complete reversal to revoke Article 50, which is within her power, not just a Prime Minister, but also implementing the motion by Parliament rejecting a no-deal Brexit.
Article 50 is the part of the British withdrawal law that governs the Brexit process. If May revokes it, there is little chance that another Brexit attempt will ever be made. The majority that voted to leave the EU will have been betrayed.
An analysis by the BBC Europe editor says that the "Leaders want to avoid no-deal Brexit":[W]hile EU leaders have ruled out re-opening the Brexit withdrawal agreement and the "backstop" text, you can bet they'll discuss a longer Brexit delay at their summit today.
This is, in my view, a misjudgment.
Yes, under normal circumstances and with a competent and trustworthy negotiation partner on the British side, ways would be found to fudge the issue and to avoid a Brexit in all but its name. That is why I predicted long ago that Brexit was not gonna happen .
But May has really done everything to affront the other side of the table. She did not stick to commitments she had given, delivered papers too late to properly discuss them, and came to emergency summits called on her behalf without anything new to offer.
Matthew Parris, a conservative political commentator in London who originally favored May, now remarks of her:"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid. I have heard that from almost everyone who has dealt with her," Parris says. He said he had never expected this much hatred, "and that is not a word I use lightly."
The leaders of other EU countries also have had it with here. The voters on the continent do not care about Britain. There will be no punishment for Merkel or Macron for letting Britain crash out.
The EU will survive without the United Kingdom. With a no-deal Brexit the United Kingdom is likely to fall apart. Within a few years North Ireland would join the Irish Republic, peacefully one hopes, and Scotland would vote to leave.
A bit of hope may still rest in this one line in the BBC report which it leaves unexplained:Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
Is there a EU deal being made with the opposition leader and behind Theresa May's back?
Given that she is the Prime Minister how would that work out?
Emily , Mar 21, 2019 3:20:07 PM | linkB I think it should be understood that the British people voted to Leave.
We want out.
We want our sovereignty back.
Our democracy back
The right to govern ourselves again - a 800 year tradition..
Article 50 was always a trap.
It should have been done by the repealing of the 1972 act which took us in.
As Gerard Batten - a brilliant strategist who actually masterminded the UKIP campaign to get a referendum and win - has written in length on how it could and should have been done.
We British voted to leave.
Not get stitched up in a May deal which means we never can.
Leave means leave.
Whatever the cost - a no deal is fine with most of us.
Whatever it takes we expect to leave on March 29th as promised by the British Prime Minister 108 times in the House of Commons.
Leave March 29th or
I have MY yellow vest waiting.
Altai , Mar 21, 2019 3:28:16 PM | linkb is being very unfair to May, as is everyone in the MSM. I don't know why some non-Brits are taking this so personally. (I'm not from the UK myself)JohninMK , Mar 21, 2019 3:28:37 PM | link
May undertook efforts to enforce the vote and leave EU. EU proceeds to offer deals which are essentially meaningless and mean the UK is defacto still in the EU. In general EU officials carry themselves appallingly in public comments despite May being quite neutral.
Eventually May reaches some kind of deal and puts it before parliament. Despite being as unobjectionable as possible to those who'd rather not leave the EU, whilst still being a deal which allows the UK to leave the EU in forms other than name only, parliament continue to vote down any and all deals and generally act in petty ways to disrupt May's government.
Parliament then proceeds to autistically screech about a no-deal Brexit despite they, themselves deliberately voting down every deal May brought them and trying to oust her in no-confidence votes in order to generate exactly the 'chaos', they constantly wail about. Now the speaker is acting in the most insanely ways to damage the legitimacy of parliament too.
Dealing with internal schisms relating to Europe has brought down more determined Tory leaders than May. I'm not sure why she is specially being given the blame. I find it hard to see any of her actions as being problematic. She seems to genuinely have got on with trying to enforce Brexit. *Larry David shrug*
Reality is this was about freedom of movement and I think most other European countries other than Ireland don't understand why this is an issue because they had a tiny fraction of the intra-EU immigration that Britain and Ireland have been going through the last 10 years. (Because every EU country but them and Denmark put in place a 5 year moratorium on recognising the new states freedom of movement, leaving the UK and Ireland to receive the full whack, transforming their labour economies massively) It's truly staggering in number and dwarfed other forms of immigration during that period. It was also characterised by it's highly unskilled nature.
Corbyn, for his part, does understand the issue and has spoken out about the burden of so much unskilled labour from the EU in the past.Emily, you are on the money there. We the great unwashed are not happy with our representatives in Parliament who seem to think that this is a normal Law where they were elected to vote on their conscience. It is not, there are voting to implement a clear instruction to action Brexit.Deschutes , Mar 21, 2019 3:30:11 PM | link
When we voted there was no discussion of staying half in like May's deal, we wanted out regardless of any chaos as forecast in Project Fear at the time.
A problem we have is that the entire MSM is behind May's deal. There is no, no discussion on the benefits of a clean break.
If we clean Brexit then those countries with their nose in the EU trough will have to agree between themselves who gets what share of the cuts as the £1B a month cashflow that the UK gives them stops, starting immediately. That they don't seem to have started those discussions yet leads me to believe that they have no intention of allowing a clean break. We should expect that there will be some kind of last minute offer by the EU.
It would take a lot more courage than has been showed to date by them for MPs, whose votes are public, to go against the Brexit Referendum and kill Brexit. Bluntly, many of them, of all Parties, would be signing their own job resignations.Good god, this Brexit soap opera never ends, does it? It just keeps dragging on, endlessly....another vote...another extension...another meeting with Brussels heads, etc. And it's so fucking confusing! First they have the referendum to do the total Brexit–and it passes! But instead of doing what the voter's voted for, the PMs and MPs keep fucking about, trying to undo the vote results....soft Brexit w/cheese....med soft Brexit with trade bennies....no hard Brexit pleeze.Josh , Mar 21, 2019 3:32:58 PM | link
Holy fuck, the entire thing is quintessentially British! No humans on the planet surface quibble, nit-pick and natter on like the Brits. They are the hands-down masters of hen-peckery. Nobody comes close. This whole Brexit fiasco is a fine example of their character. Don't get me wrong I really like the Brits in general for their gregariousness and tendency to party and drink excessively. But back to Brexit: they should do the hard Brexit. Seriously. Just get the fuck out of the EU. It's what the majority of Brits want.
They don't want the refugees.. they obviously don't want to be a team player and follow all the EU requirements and laws. So bite the bullet and get OUT. Life goes on, give it a go with no EU association. And so what if N. Ireland goes with Ireland? It should anyways!
They took it from them way back when. If Scotland leaves, good for them. And Wales too! We're witnessing the incredible shrinking UK, and it is indeed a most satisfying spectacle :-)It is inconceivable now that there would be an extension, that there would be a revoking by May of article 50, or simply that there would not be a no deal crash-out.karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 3:33:02 PM | link
I draw a comparison between Ukraine's folly delusion that they can join the EU and ditch Russia and live well, with the UK's folly that they can leave the EU and have other options. It reminds me of the quip we used to hear as we visited the UK from Europe: "There's fog over the Channel. The Continent is isolated."
The UK has to deal with Europe. A WTO deal is also a deal, be it a very bad one which will set in motion lots of tariff-tit-for-tat punishing. Europe is just the bigger entity; it does not need the UK. The UK has the EU as its main trading partner - but not only that; all of its trade pacts with other countries have been through the EU. Not only do they have to, in the end, negotiate a deal with the EU from scratch; they have to do so also with all the other countries.
It's folly; most of it is based on psychology of loss of sovereignty and pure racism.
Ukraine has to deal with Russia. It chose not to, to exacerbate relations; it is now suffering the consequences. The UK's fate is likely not as abject as Ukraine's was and is; however it will likely also fall apart. Will London's financial centre identity also fall apart? Not likely - but it will become even more of a money-laundering hole than it was to date. Look for less values, not more; less transparency, more bribery, as the London trade crowd tries to preserve their life quality.
Look for even more of death knell absurdities by MI6 - the chemical sagas in Syria and Skripal are but a way to somehow squeeze some kind of foreign policy NATO lead position out for the UK while in actual fact their leverage into the EU has dissipated. I applaud the demise of the British aristocracy; it will be for Corbyn to rebuild the country and likely to do so with much more of a mandate after this debacle has been spinning the trough for months.Corbyn tweeted this just minutes ago . Unfortunately, it's just an update and doesn't add much to the conversation.Russ , Mar 21, 2019 3:34:51 PM | linkGlobalization, fake interdependency really just abject dependency, food insecurity, abdication of sovereignty, double standards for who is and isn't allowed to run corporate welfare states and set up barriers and dump, yup, globalization's got it all.ken , Mar 21, 2019 3:38:21 PM | link
As every British faction is demonstrating with their dithering and equivocations, their attitude toward the EU is: Can't live with it, can't live without it.
(Well, the fake "left" are just can't-live-without-it, since they abdicated what was supposed to be their anti-globalization role from day one of the Brexit saga.)
Brexit sure has made a lot of people who talk a good game show their cards. I was cheering it on from day one, because the EU needs to be broken up completely and here's a start. The break-up of the UK also would be a fine thing.Poor Britannia,,, From world power to Globalist Serfs. Yes the sun never set on the Empire. Now the only sun they see is what the EU allows. Their demographics so messed up they'll be a 3rd world country soon if not already. The stiff upper lip Brit is now limp,,, in every category.karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 3:44:32 PM | link
No I'm not laughing,,, My country, the US of A, has the same destination dialed in, just a slightly different route. We're porpoising like the 737 MAX without the safety option, soon we'll all be citizens of the World Corpgov. Joy!Just finished reading the thread for the tweet linked @7 and it's full of animosity and ultra hatred aimed at Corbyn showing how well the propagandists did their job.Piotr Berman , Mar 21, 2019 3:50:19 PM | link
George Galloway's most recent on this topic :
"Here's something we can all agree on. British 'Democracy' is not fit for purpose. The party system the method of election the relationship between people the legislature and the executive is all now dysfunctional. Something has to give something has to change #BrexitShambles"
From my perspective, George is correct. And as commentators reflect here, at bottom is a longstanding Class War that's been in existence as long as the British state.Eurocrats probably have scant needs to be super nice to EU. Politically, various countries have some wishes, so as long as they follow that their lower parts remain fully clothed. Practically, Brits are hard to please, preoccupied with winning some points against each other. And realistically, can anything really bad happen to them? In the worst case, surely US military will ferry some humanitarian help, perhaps dumping it at Irish border.JOHN CHUCKMAN , Mar 21, 2019 3:53:58 PM | linkDavid Goodrich , Mar 21, 2019 3:58:58 PM | link
Britain in recent years has offered the most vivid example of genuinely disastrous government.
First, David Cameron, likely the most incompetent Prime Minister in British history, offers a vote to the public about remaining in the EU.
It was something he didn't need to do at all, and it came after forty years of being part of EU. And, in such a huge and complex matter, not well-understood by the general public, it makes little sense to hold a vote, especially coming at a time of considerable public agitation over refugees and migration, a highly emotional topic where cool-headed facts did not at all feature. If for some reason you insisted on a vote, it should only have been held after, say, a one-year period of public education and discussion and debate. It is a hugely consequential decision.
Leading up to the vote, he ran around flapping his arms and pretending to play statesman, telling people he'd sure stay in the EU with the adjustments in terms he had obtained from Brussels.
Then we have Theresa May spend a few years trying to sort out terms with the EU, making quite a spectacle of herself on several occasions, as having cabinet ministers quit and having votes against the government's position, as well as forming an alliance from hell to stay in power.
Yet, the bottom line, as they say, remains clear: Britain will suffer in leaving the EU, no matter under what set of terms.
And the EU itself, one of the world's largest economies, has been given a serious wound at a time of other menacing economic and social problems, and that in a world with many signs of weakness and instability.
May insists, bull-headedly, on going ahead with Brexit, yet so easily she could just declare that she, as Prime Minister, now sees how much damage this is doing and will not proceed, in the national interest. She could easily also hold a second vote, something polls suggest would go the other way from the original vote.
But no, damn the torpedoes, we're going full-steam ahead.
Rational government? I think not. And it is just one portion of what we see in a number of Western countries and around a number of important issues.
Oh well, maybe people can console themselves with, "At least it's not quite the vicious lunatic government we see in the United States, rampaging through every country where it finds anything it dislikes, threatening everyone with sanctions or sabotage or war, and, of course, threatening the world's very stability."
Does anyone believe the world is going to survive this period and maintain its economic and political and social health? I certainly don't.This entire mess, start to finish, is a botched attempt to hold the Tory party together. The welfare of the British people no longer has any importance whatsoever to the Tories.JohninMK , Mar 21, 2019 3:59:19 PM | link
There are 55 million British subjects ( By law we are not citizens of our country but subjects of the British Monarch ) of working age and 17.4 million voted to leave. That's not a majority. And the Brexiteers insist having been allowed to vote once we can never vote again.
Austerity is punishing the innocent for economic crimes committed by a small elite and millions who voted to leave did so to strike back at them. We, as a people, are dimly aware in an unfocused way that we have been swindled and cheated by a smug elite for decades.
How ironic then that it is an unprincipled lazy oaf like Boris Johnson (A man fired twice for lying to his boss) and a weaponised banker like Rees-Mogg who are deciding our futures.
My country is breaking up. Whats left will be a small, weak, disliked and untrusted remnant. Wide open to exploitation by other powers, State and non State.
David GoodrichAltai @ 3vk , Mar 21, 2019 4:01:57 PM | link
I think you are being too kind to May. The 255 page deal she presented to the Cabinet last August I think, has barely changed since then. What has happened is the 16 or so really nasty clauses in it have become hidden under the Irish Question. It looked for a while as we were being swept towards agreeing the May deal if only the EU would agree a form of words on the Irish backstop, ignoring the other issues. Then Bercow stopped that by saying that Parliament couldn't keep voting on the same measure until it passed, a favourite EU tactic (you will vote until you vote the right way).
I suspect that the EU may indeed change the backstop words and it will pass, but there are increasing reasons why they won't.
Yesterday in Dutch elections a populist party did very well indeed, this does not bode well for the established order in the EU elections on the 23rd May.
The EU really needs the period of chaos that will start after a clean Brexit to scare the European electorates into voting conservatively, forcefully making the point that if this was happening to a country the size of the UK, God help them if they wanted to do the same.
b, I disagree with your comment "A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be catastrophic for Britain's economy". The plan to go zero tariff/keep EU regulations in place will negate a good proportion of the issues and may force the EU to do the same, at least until the new Commission is in place until the Autumn.
My reasoning on this is with zero tariff there will be no halt to EU trucks coming into the UK to deliver product and produce. The problem will be when those trucks, plus Irish trucks and UK trucks head back or to the EU. If they put up barriers there will be huge outbound queues towards Dover. This will cause huge economic outcries across the EU putting big pressure on politicians to sort it.
We need to remember that EU agricultural producers had a dry run of this five years ago when Russia shut their borders overnight to EU produce with lorries with perishables on board with nowhere to go. That cost billions of Euros and I doubt the Dutch and Spaniards in particular want that to happen again.
Incidentally, zero tariff will have little financial effect on the UK as the revenue from external tariffs goes straight to the EU funds, not the countries.
Once a decision is made and we are not going to gift our ace , £39B, away the UK gets to be in a much stronger position, especially as this time we might have a decent negotiating team in place as they will not be trying to 'remain but not remain' as we will be out.
We will also be able to re-connect with suppliers in the Commonwealth. Be good to get New Zealand butter again.Theresa May is a remainer and I still think she's playing 4D chess (with the objective of imploding Brexit from within while making it look like an accident). Was the Conservative Party so unified around Brexit, she wouldn't be PM: it would be Leadsom, Johnson or many other brexiter bigwigs already in position of power in the Party.karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 4:17:35 PM | link
The EU would survive without the UK, but that would be a huge downgrade and a definitive strategic defeat. When the EU was created in the 1990s, expectations were big: it was expected to supplant the USSR as the USA's rival, with realistic chances of surpassing the Americans in the near future.
When the Euro was created in 2000, many pundits believed it would supplant the US Dollar as the world standard fiat currency. The hype was huge.
That ended. After the creation of the EZ, the economies of the EU began to diverge instead of converge: the poorer members begun to be poorer; the richer, richer. After 2008, the EU's economy essentially went full Japan and stagnated. It is only a matter of time before it begins to recede.
If the UK exits, the EU will devolve into a mere Carolingian project, with much humbler goals.In his tweets, Corbyn says he's laid out Labour's alternative plan which is described in the short vid at the link above. Elsewhere I saw a figure citing 63% of Britons voted for Brexit, which is consistent with what Craig Murray's said about the voting share between Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland--all of whom cast majorities for Remain.Deltaeus , Mar 21, 2019 4:30:13 PM | link
Corbyn's in a pickle since he's trying to abide the will of Britain's voting public despite knowing Remain is better for the overall British interest. Why Brexit gained a majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the British nation to please the City of London pirates.
May appears to favor the hard fall out of spite for the opposing constituency, which many see as her channeling Thatcher's ghost. And the only reason May's government remains is through the Blairite 5th column's treason. IMO, Corbyn's terms are probably acceptable to the EU; but the EU doesn't want to see him in charge of England as his domestic plan goes against EU neoliberalism.
The ball's back in Parliament's court, so we'll need to await events there.I have one honest question about Brexit. Why is the following quote true?SteveK9 , Mar 21, 2019 4:44:19 PM | linkA no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be catastrophic for Britain's economy.
I have been trying for months to understand the mechanism by which this catastrophe will occur, and I cannot find an explanation anywhere. I find only people asserting that it will be so. They may be right, but its not clear to me why.
From a naive point of view, consider that other countries trade with the EU and don't suffer from a catastrophe. So why can't the UK?
NZ trades with the EU and as far as I can tell they're not living in "utter chaos".
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very grateful to find out.I am not a Brit. I was interested to read Emily's comment. To an outsider it seemed that the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU.TEP , Mar 21, 2019 5:02:58 PM | link
Leaving the EU and relying on WTO rules for trade would be messy, but mostly because no plans have been made, even with 2 years to carry them out. How is a private company in the UK going to make provision for the future, when they have no idea what that future would be? To end up in a state where the only remaining option is a complete break, with no planning is criminal incompetence. (Aside: May's ridiculous Skripal fiasco was a pretty good demonstration to the outside World of her low ability.)
One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60 years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia.I'm surprised there's no mention of the 22nd May as the date of the extension deadline ... really? ... the day before the EU elections? Clearly designed as a cynical safeguard against a flood of euroskeptics entering the EU political scene.Ort , Mar 21, 2019 5:13:54 PM | link
Here's hoping it backfires horrendously on the EU.@ Deltaeus | Mar 21, 2019 4:30:13 PM | 17ThePaper , Mar 21, 2019 5:14:52 PM | link
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very grateful to find out.
It's one of those self-inflating, self-confirming propositions; if there's a critical mass of Chicken Littles chirping with hysterical terror, the chaos becomes a fait accompli .
Alternatively, one may ask if the dread post-Brexit "utter chaos" is distinguishable from the abiding, and escalating, utter chaos of the UK's government.
It's interesting that all parties are unable to cope with Brexit becoming a Gordian Knot, insist that cutting it is simply too catastrophic, and so instead devise approaches to simply make it go away-- either by infinitely kicking it down the road, or officially declaring that it was a misadventure that never should've happened in the first place.
I'll turn 64 next month, but since I'll never be a Sensible Adult I'm offended by the tendency of Sensible Adults to impatiently and bumptiously wave off the legitimacy of the referendum; I presume they expect that if Brexit is formally nullified by further chicanery, the childlike pro-Brexit idiots weary of being ridden over by the EU Trojan Horse will simply accept that it was a fool's choice in the first place.
Meanwhile, the UK government consistently defers to the EU to dictate the terms and conditions for withdrawal. It appears to be unclear on the concept of unilaterally pulling itself out from under Brussels' talons.
So now we see a spectacle that combines "Groundhog Day" with "Oliver Twist in Hell": the odious zombie-PM May peripatetically crawling to Brussels with her begging bowl, asking, "Please, sirs, may I have less ?"Such deluded analysis. If the EU tried to play on internal divisions to destroy a nuclear armed power it would just bring defeat and absolute destruction on itself (ie the German-French oligarchy) just like in the 20th century. The EU isn't a cohesive entity outside the German-French oligarchy. France could be out of the German choke hold any day. Italy is close to moving out of the EU control. The ex-Socialists states in the East will take any German money, or trade deal that benefits them, but would as soon turn on Germany on a geo-strategic level. London, with US help, will take on any attempt at German continental empire building like anytime in the last centuries. Germany allying with Russia or China against the Atlantic Powers would just make it even easier to split Europe and bring its doom.Zachary Smith , Mar 21, 2019 5:19:08 PM | linkjared , Mar 21, 2019 5:32:56 PM | link"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid.
Quite an indictment! From the very beginning I've had no idea at all about what's going on in the UK. I hope the ordinary people there survive whatever it is that's happening, and the fallout doesn't spread to other countries.I May manages to pull-off a hard Brexit it will be much to her credit. Any company not making preparations deserves the outcome. EU is an black hole of non sovereignty. If Ireland and Scotland an Wales should wish to seperate from England, why is that a problem for England?Ger , Mar 21, 2019 5:33:01 PM | linkSeems quaint to believe the Brits ran an empire ... on the other hand, the Brit 1% highly favor the status quo. That is a majority in western countries.karlof1 , Mar 21, 2019 5:49:38 PM | linkGeorge Galloway in the video I was barred from posting said the "Brexit Crash" is nothing more than Remain Media propaganda/hyperbole. Indeed, remaining within EU prohibits any UK government from nationalizing anything, such as renationalizing British Rail, or from favoring any national industry over those located offshore. Why? Because the EU's a Neoliberal project that's aimed at eliminating such socialistic attributes from ALL European economies, and is why Benn and UK Labour opposed entering the EU from the beginning. Galloway also talks about how Brexit created a schism within the Tories as traditional British nationalists have also always opposed entering the EU.Mobius 01 , Mar 21, 2019 5:59:39 PM | link
Indeed, Brexit allows the current campaign by Corbyn's Labour to move forward unhindered by EU rules and is very much to England's benefit. A Yandex search using Galloway Brexit chaos brings up the video I mention into top place. It's only ten minutes long and very much worth the time spent.Deltaeus,
Leaving the EU doesn't have to be catastrophic for the UK, but leaving without a deal necessarily would be. If the UK really does crash out with no deal next week, it instantly becomes a third country that has no trade deals with the EU at all. Other countries that trade with the EU do so within a framework of pre-existing agreements. The US and Japan each have between 20 and 50 such trade agreements with the EU, for example (I can't be bothered to look up the exact numbers). New Zealand is not in utter chaos because it has had trade agreements with the EU since the very beginning, and so on.
No deal means no deal. It means roll-on/roll-off ferry traffic between UK and EU ports grinds to a halt because every single lorry that could previously drive straight off the ferry and onto the roads now has to be carefully inspected. The ports simply have no capacity to do this because there is supposed to be freedom of movement and no inspections. EU ports would become totally gridlocked within hours, and new ferries would be unable to load or unload. The UK would have to stop exports to the EU completely to keep the ports clear for incoming traffic (which could still go through uninspected because the UK could waive its usual import checks to deal with the emergency).
This would continue, with massive economic damage, until new trade deals were agreed, which could take months or even years. That is just one small example that I've tried to keep simple.
Mar 19, 2019 | www.youtube.com
RT correspondent Eisa Ali reports on the latest Brexit drama in the UK Parliament. Then, economist and founder of Democracy at Work Richard Wolff joins Rick Sanchez to discuss, arguing that the Brexit debate constitutes "an endless struggle about what doesn't matter" and that whether the British are "in" or "out" of Europe is an irrelevant distraction from the problems really faced by the UK.
Mar 15, 2019 | www.project-syndicate.org
Mitchell A. Orenstein Authoritarian nationalists such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán win support not only by attacking immigrants, but also by delivering economic policies that benefit the poor and middle class. Western analysts and, more important, Western leaders need to learn this lesson before it's too late.
On March 20, the European People's Party, the conservative bloc in the European Parliament, will decide whether to expel Hungary's ruling party, Fidesz. The EPP has been slow to censure Fidesz and Hungary's autocratic prime minister, Viktor Orbán, for its assault on democracy and rule of law. Yet, Orbán's Western critics have been equally slow to understand the social and economic policies that underpin his popularity.
Consider the bold set of family policies that Orbán announced on February 10. So far, the verdict in the West on these policies, which are aimed at addressing the country's low fertility rate and further reducing immigration, has been thunderously negative and all but blind to their effectiveness in entrenching Orbán's support among Hungarian voters.
Western analysts fail to recognize that authoritarian nationalists such as Orbán win support not only by attacking immigrants, but also by delivering economic policies that benefit average people. Mainstream political parties in the West need to learn this economic lesson fast if they want to compete against their own populist challengers.
Orbán is keen to connect his nationalist message to generous and popular social policies, while encouraging Hungarian women and families to have more children. Hungary's current fertility rate of 1.45 children per female is below replacement rate. And its population has been shrinking since 1989, mirroring declines in other former communist countries that used to provide extensive social support to families.
The plan's centerpiece is a lifetime exemption from personal income tax for women who bear and raise four or more children (Orbán and his wife have five). This and other policies in the new package will have a real impact on all families in Hungary. Women under 40 who marry for the first time and have worked for at least three years will be eligible for a $36,000 "childbearing" loan at a discounted rate, which will be forgiven as they have children. Larger families can apply for an $9,000 government grant toward the purchase of a seven-seat automobile. Grandparents taking care of children will be eligible for leave from work and benefits. And the government will create 21,000 new subsidized childcare places.
Leading Western media, analysts, and politicians have been almost universally critical of the plan, thereby falling right into Orbán's trap. The Economist , a longtime advocate of the free-market economic policies that have impoverished many in Eastern Europe while producing great wealth for a few and higher living standards for a middle-class minority , predictably criticized Orbán's plan for being too expensive. The new measures are "unlikely to give birth to a baby boom" and could "swell an economy that is close to overheating, and inflate house prices."Subscribe nowFor a limited time only, get unlimited access to On Point, The Big Picture, and the PS Archive, plus our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.
Journalist Adam Taylor echoed these sentiments in The Washington Post , arguing that Orbán's policies will "barely move the needle on birthrate and may represent a poor return on investment." We have heard this same Western critique for decades: helping people is too expensive and does not work, paying for houses will only make them pricier, and it's better to rely on markets than on public policies.
But Orbán's critics ignore the examples of Poland and Russia, which also have implemented natalist policies in recent years. Russia's fertility rate is up to 1.75 children per female, from a low of 1.17 in 1999, partly owing to a grant program for new parents. Poland, too, has achieved higher birth rates since 2015 after introducing the massive Family 500+ initiative , which enables parents to pay for school supplies, clothes, and vacations. Both schemes were criticized as being too expensive, but Poland's public deficit has fallen , not risen. Rather, these policies have stimulated economic growth while dramatically reducing child poverty and increasing school enrollment.
Although free-market attacks on bold new social programs are no surprise, some of the sharpest criticism of Orbán's policies has come from the left. Progressives strongly dislike the fact that many of his proposals target women in a way that seems to advance a conservative, pro-family agenda.
To The Guardian 's Afua Hirsch, for example , "the idea that assistance for those in poverty is conditional on obedient reproduction is verging on the dystopian." Similarly, Princeton professor Kim Lane Scheppele, interviewed on Public Radio International , warned that, "Women are going to bear the burden of Orbán's failed economic policies." And Swedish Social Affairs Minister Annika Strandhäll said that, "This kind of policy will harm the autonomy for which women have struggled for decades."
These analysts are right that Orbán's policies are designed to encourage women to marry, buy houses, bear more children, and stay in Hungary. But their criticism misses the mark in important ways. Overall, these proposals are not coercive. Nor do they seek to keep women barefoot and homebound. Instead, Orbán's plan is designed to help women manage their work-life balance. For that, it should be celebrated, not excoriated.
Consider the lifetime income-tax exemption for women with four or more children. The primary beneficiaries of this program will be women who work, because those with no income will gain no advantage. In two-parent families where both partners have similar or equal earning potential, it may make sense for the woman to work tax-free, or run the family business, while the man stays at home with the children.
Likewise, giving grandparents childrearing benefits helps women to enter the labor force. So does subsidized childcare. And although the new loan programs do encourage women to have children, they also may enable them to buy a home. In short, these policies provide state support for women's unpaid labor.
Like it or not, some of Europe's boldest new social-policy initiatives are coming from its most illiberal governments. The negative reactions of mainstream opinion leaders in the West show how unprepared they are to do battle with Orbán and others for voters' hearts and minds. The populist right is pressing the rhetoric and policies of social democracy into the service of authoritarian nationalism. If the West cannot see or understand the appeal of this, it will be unable to fight back.
Mar 16, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org
A couple of points he makes in passing surprised me:
1) "It's why they are using the non-issue of the Irish border ..." Is it really a non-issue, and why? Surely it is a big issue, and intrinsically explosive? Maybe I am missing something there.
2) "The Labour party is squealing out of both sides of its mouth trying to get themselves out of the corner they've painted themselves into. Because they can read the polls. And what was a solid Labour lead in the winter has become a solid Tory lead in the Spring." Is it really so that that huge Labour lead has been turned into - of all things - a Tory lead? Horror of horrors. If true, the present day Brits are unfathomable. And what about the first part of that citation - what about turning it around and expressing it in terms of the reality, which is that the Labour Party consists of two wholly different, wholly contradictory, and wholly ireconcilable parts, namely the socialist majority standing behind Corbyn and the lying fascist corporatist right-wing 5th columnists whose sole objective is to sabotage the previous group in every manner possible. Would perhaps a better statement be that the difference between these two groups is being made more explicit than ever (which, I would have thought, would only increase Corbyn's support not decrease it)? Or is that just my wishful thinking and the UK masses are being successfully hoodwinked by the propaganda of the 2nd group as spouted by the MSM?
Comments on those two issues anyone, from those closer to the action? (Comments from Bevin would be especially gratefully read!)
Posted by: BM | Mar 16, 2019 9:58:53 AM | 172 ... ... ...
The other most ridiculous thing, probably moreso when you think about this Monty Pythonesque British escapade into hillarity is the fact such grand sweeping measures are allowed on a simple majority vote of the populace, thus ensuring approximately half the population will detest the result no matter what.
Say what you will about the US of A-holes, and I admit nearly all of what you say is true (except of course for the oft repeated mis-trope that Trump = US in all his venal stupidity. No, he only represents roughly 35%...and true that is egregious enough...) at least in the US such grand sweeping measures able to be put to a vote to the nation as a whole (iow, amending the Constitution) either require super majority of state legislatures or a super majourity of Congress criminals to pass.
The fact an entire nation of blooming idiots in England are where they are today is insanely larfably and udderly absurd. Also, infotaining.
And to think Theresa May is the headliner fronting this comedy act for the ages.
All this inspired of course by the equally ridiculous US president and his chief strategist the completely nutz Bannon.
... ... ...
Posted by: donkeytale | Mar 16, 2019 10:49:56 AM | 173 @ bevin | Mar 15, 2019 3:45:05 PM; Jen | Mar 15, 2019 3:49:59 PM; mourning dove | Mar 15, 2019 3:59:32 PM
Posted by: ex-SA | Mar 16, 2019 9:18:03 AM | 171
A few half-baked thoughts on this: it seems to me both sides of this argument have some merits. On the one side I am inclined to agree with ex-SA that the working classes in the colonising countries have had by and large a pretty cushy life since after the 2nd World War when compared to the disenfranchised of the colonised countries, both before and after (ostensible but not really real) decolonisation.
The brutality of neoliberalism and austerity on working people in the rich nations (but arguably even more so on those in poor nations!) does not in my view very seriously detract from that argument.
One thing that does arguably somewhat detract from the above argument is that when viewed in non-materialistic terms, those living in the so-called rich countries often have markedly meaningless and miserable lives compared to many poor people living in materially poor countries (extreme destitution obviously aside) - in other words they are miserably unhappy.
Many people in Germany, for example, earn relatively high wages, most of which they spend on very high housing costs (and energy costs etc) - often alone, and spend the rest of their income on highly processed food from supermarkets that costs a multiple of what the simple basic local foodstuffs that were eaten in former times would cost (and still could if you know how to live more meaningfully); and meanwhile their life is spiritually frozen and devoid of worthwhile meaning.
In contrast, often people living materially poor lives in undeveloped and in materialist terms extremely poor countries, but living much closer to nature and with much warmer intra- and inter-familial relations in extended families, and have a philosophy of life that is less exclusively materialist and much more conducive to spiritual well-being. I would argue however that this aspect is largely tangental to the issue of winners and losers of colonialism.
I agree with Bevin @ 131's point about the destitution of the British working classes prior to the first world war, but what about post-1960's? I don't really see that the lifestyles of the worst victims of austerity today are comparable to the lifestyles of the poor in the 18th or 19th century? I think the lives of even the poorest of the poor (excluding probably the homeless) in the West are massively subsidised by the spoils of the (ongoing) rape of the colonised countries.
The entire expectations of people in the West - including the poor - are based on assumptions of entitlement to things which are critically dependent on the rape and theft of the resources of the colonised countries. Look at the extraordinarily privileged living standards of ordinary working people in Belgium today, as an extreme example!
It is always interesting to reflect that in former times the West was always viewed as the poor part of the world, and the East as wealthy - and historically it is true that throughout most of recorded history the East was extremely wealthy compared to the pauper West - the current-day material wealth of the West relative to the East should be viewed as an extraordinary anomaly! The first Westerners to visit the East marvelled at its phenomenal wealth and envied it. That indeed was the primary cause of the Crusades - the paupers of the West envied the riches of the East and drummed up pseudo-religious excuses to rape and pillage whatever they could grab. It is not without reason that most of the economically poorest countries in reacent times are precisely those countries with the most abundant valuable natural resources.
Posted by: BM | Mar 16, 2019 11:08:29 AM | 175
Mar 09, 2019 | www.unz.com
kerdasi amaq , says: March 7, 2019 at 1:24 pm GMTWhy would only blacks object to existence of these monuments? What about the purported victors of that war? They could have objected but did not. The people attacking these monuments are effectively declaring that they want a civil war, as I see it.opaque windows , says: March 9, 2019 at 11:44 am GMT
This disrespect for civility must be punished.Icons of outstanding accomplishment seem nearly always to be about war.. and the political figures that made the Oligarchs filthy rich prosecuting a war that killed millions. The more dead, the bigger the statute.
Where are the monuments to Watson and Crick, Newton, the persons that discovered penicillin, the engines that convert energy from one form to a more usable other form or statutes of the persons that founded our great universities or the persons that discovered how to capture electricity and make available in every household?
Few icons to those that have made the quality of our lives better are ever produced, Why?
Probably because the war mongers would have none of that.. Oligarchs own 90% of the press, the media, and
means of communicating their wars, no damn invention that makes life better for the displicibles is going to get into the way of profit making wars that fund so much of Economic Zionism.
Consider the recent invention at the U of Australia where hard work discovered 2,200 different places in the world, where a combination of sunlight and wind energy can produce and store sufficient energy to supply 24/7 all the energy the entire world needs on the power grid. Not a word of it in the media. Soon I expect to see a monument to the shock and awe bastards?
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 20:40The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22That does not detract from the fact that the Ukrainian cabinet has been chosen by the US state department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors - in his capacity as head of state?ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what colour stool our future king has produced this week.jgbg Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 18:42jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26
Diverse Unity sounds much better than Nazi
The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.
PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22
Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54
But the Euro Maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt government in Kiev.Vatslav Rente , 13 Jul 2015 17:44
I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.
Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.
Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments of foreigners in their country.
Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
- A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café and wounded police officers.
I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
"Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...
jgbg gimmeshoes , 13 Jul 2015 17:42Laurence Johnson, 13 Jul 2015 17:18
Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.
Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on the Czech police stolen vehicle database: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)
Right Sector are no strangers to such thuggery - remember their failed attempt to extort a casino in Odessa?The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.
So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?
Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15
Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years. Transcarpathian Region is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see here is a gang war in fatigues.
tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14
sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...
in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription, they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...
an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays... not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)
did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO
Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13
Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.
Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11
Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is, sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20
But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles. If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15
There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.
Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32
More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.
Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24
Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned in, one way or another, and soon.
GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02
Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but Russian propaganda.
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54EugeneGur , 13 Jul 2015 11:21
It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.
Story here.Jeremn, 13 Jul 2015 11:16Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine? They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the control of contraband.
Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.
At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population. They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists" everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655Stas Ustymenko Jeremn 13 Jul 2015 11:14
Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources, 19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under one roof:
The US-Ukraine Business Council's 16-member Executive Committee is packed with US agribusiness companies, including representatives from Monsanto, John Deere, DuPont Pioneer, Eli Lilly, and Cargill.
The Council's 20 'senior Advisors' include James Greene (Former Head of NATO Liason Office Ukraine); Ariel Cohen (Senior Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation); Leonid Kozachenko (President of the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation); six former US Ambassadors to Ukraine, and the former ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Oleh Shamshur.
You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast, stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's members are clear on what these are.
With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.
Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03
Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage.
Right Sector claims they were trying to fight the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians", members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party. One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.
PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21tanyushka Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 10:10
Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.
1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids, devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot of bad stuff happened, including -
4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.
Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
do these links answer your question?
tanyushka 13 Jul 2015 09:55Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West, Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...
Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53
Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages, but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities, fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine. And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.
VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51
This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian mongrels.
Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them with their private foreign mercenary force.
Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds, no doubt with promises of power sharing.
So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than to the US.
An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war.
She no doubt got her position not by intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor, Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?
Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51
The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.
Jeremn DrMacTomjim 13 Jul 2015 09:43
Yes. But meanwhile the Atlantic Council tells us this is why more Ukrainians admire nationalists.
Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying or questioning their heroism).
Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35
Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:
In his article for the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (Weekly Mirror) newspaper Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema wrote that 74 peaceful citizens and 12 policemen had been killed in Kyiv downtown on February 18-20, 2014, while 180 citizens and over 180 law enforcers had suffered gunshot wounds.
12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.
Still Kremlin lies?
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30
Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant Nazi street gangs don't kill you.
Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26
You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero. Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24
The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for the Ukrainians.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18
Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12
The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are in order for such dedication. The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved to the temptation to report news. Too bad.
aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36
Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing. False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say.
SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25
The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.
todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54
Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38
Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.
monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54
Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?
Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49
Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t. Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)
Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33
In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16
It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics in western Ukraine.
Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.
Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces. They favour ethnic cleansing.
Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10
The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved the Ukrainian people.
Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.
It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western Ukrainians.
Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02
Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...
Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53
It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine infrastructure to US corporates.
SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14
Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:
"Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."
The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09
I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine? Kind of seems like we have seen this all before. Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?..... Well we all know what happened there.
Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41
Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.
Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.
And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia go to other organisations?
VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26
It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of being pro-Putin as the government accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.
stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24
The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they succeeded
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54
I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi I mean 'Iran', but surely you understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back to the very early 90's.
From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.
And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.
Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38
The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!
Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50
We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national organisation.
DrMacTomjim 13 Jul 2015 02:04
"Note to Ukraine: Time to Reconsider Your Historic Role Models" Someone wrote this a bit late.
DrMacTomjim hisimperialmajesty 13 Jul 2015 02:01
"neo-Chekists" That's new to me.... Are you sure they are not "Just doing their jobs" ? Did you read the Nafeez Ahmed piece someone linked ? Here (if you didn't) https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092
And this from Foreign Affairs https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas-libya-debacle
It's never the US....it's never the West..... (you know, to balance things) : )
todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53
If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant. Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.
Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.
GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35
So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear when it's one of their own violating them.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing of their government
HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09
The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular Ukrainian government.
sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35
this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.
annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31
The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/ Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.
annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25
perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from your beloved Faux News.
annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14
the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.
Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59
Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army. This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine as a functional state.
The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland) in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.
DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38
That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.
I rather reword it to
That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population (which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37
What do you think it is?
There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.
If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads' - you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.
The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this do?
You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.
This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing is also acknowledged by the BBC.
Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?
If so - why?
And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?
Have I addressed your point yet?
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34
I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive) and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.
The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together - maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33
The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave Ukraine alone.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29
One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was. Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the silence would be broken. At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media is much more murky.
The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu - ie real news very occasionally appears in it.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08
So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away. The BBC are still keeping shtum.
The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.
PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07
There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor was going to muscle in.
If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.
This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.
PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05
Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.
BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04
11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better candidates here.
fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55
It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears for the Nazis and Banderistas.
hisimperialmajesty Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 19:54
Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc. Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!
Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53
If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they just want the business for themselves.
Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51
I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German domination or Russian protection.
The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason to want to rejoin the rest of the country.
If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.
Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45
just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them 14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil
Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44
According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding officer. It was the beginning of the fight.
Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41
Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go.. The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.
Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39
The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will easily find it. The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from investigating Maiden shooters.
Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up your own mind.
Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29
Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the benefits of seasons and weather. Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were forced to stay in).
Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population). Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine or Russia - they are all genetically the same people. This information should be better taught in Ukraine.
The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.
quorkquork annamarinja 12 Jul 2015 19:27
There are already jihadist groups fighting in Ukraine! IN MIDST OF WAR, UKRAINE BECOMES GATEWAY FOR JIHAD
Havingalavrov obscurant 12 Jul 2015 18:33
It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they should leave Right sector and join the army.
This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.
annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18
have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia (next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language. She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.
Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10
Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.
jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53
And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation inside the Donbass.
It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.
The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.
jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45jgbg caaps02, 12 Jul 2015 17:34
Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.
Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.
The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...
Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.
Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.
.... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the hands of Yanukovich's little clan...
As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.
There was no "coup".
An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September 2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.
The Maidan protesters were not armed
This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina - the video is still on the BBC website.
....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.
The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.
pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45
There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?
pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38
His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking, is beyond him.
normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19
Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless, Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.
pushkinsideburn sashasmirnoff 12 Jul 2015 16:13
That quote is a myth https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-cia-owns-everyone-of-any-significance-in-the-major-media.t158/
Though doesn't mean it's not true of course
greatwhitehunter 12 Jul 2015 15:47
As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured . In the long term no body would be able to live with the right sector or more precisely the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.
sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44
"When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?"
This may be why: "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William Colby
Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43
This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in 2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced the Police to arm themselves in preparation.
Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.
The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent in the coming months.
SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40
Putin is a Fascist dictator.
Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses some democratic elements and space for opposition groups. He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia. He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.
ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31
'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'
Agreed. As is everything is Russia's fault.
ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26
This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.
CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06
Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of Ukraine to identify themselves as Ukrainians under the process of rootisation - Ukrainization, then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided to ethnically cleane them.. It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05
let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII. There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
Now moving to the present. The US-installed oligarchs in Kiev have been cooperating closely with Ruropean neo-nazis (the followers of the WWII scum): http://rt.com/news/155364-ukraine-nazi-division-march/
In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during the WWII.
Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04
These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists' revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59
Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs (sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.
foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58
Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
What is a poor troll to do these days??
Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.
What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the "Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.
samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55
Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution -- with regret and cynicism.
That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle. Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.
In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.
TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49
The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...
Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople, not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a great service to Ukraine, can it?
annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44
Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).
vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38
"Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week, there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading towards Maidan 3.0.
ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26
The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.
The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.
Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American post -imperial foreign policy.
Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or Putin's apologists.
The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.
Dennis Levin 12 Jul 2015 13:29
Canadian interviewed, fighting for 'Right Sector'.
The Right Sector of Euromaidan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFqUasBOUY
Lets reflect for a moment on the Editorial directives, that would have 'MORE GUNS' distributed to NAZIS..
The Guarn publishes, 'Britain should arm Ukraine, says Tory donor' - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/britain-should-arm-ukraine
Al Jazeera says,'t's time to arm Ukraine' - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/arms-ukraine-russia-separatists-150210075309643.html
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The West should arm Ukraine - http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/zbigniew-brzezinski-the-west-should-arm-ukraine-354770.html
ploughmanlunch ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 13:06
'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'
Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.
However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their fellow countrymen ).
Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.
Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations, using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried out.
mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52
I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian, Russian and Romanian minority.
How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?
SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49
Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.
You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will manage to blame the russians now.
RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33
Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law, Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.
The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is a financial black hole.
When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?
jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15
The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.
Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative. Here's some video of some of the events:
Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian. In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen. Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.
Feb 23, 2019 | newobserveronline.com
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a formal electoral pact for the upcoming April election with the Otzma Yehudit (literally, "Jewish Power") party which has as its policy the expulsion of all non-Jews from Israel, and whose leaders have said that "Christians are 'blood sucking vampires' who should be expelled from Israel."
News of the alliance was carried in the media aimed directly at Jews, such as the Times of Israel , but has been completely suppressed in the Jewish lobby controlled media in Europe and America -- because there, the Jewish lobby always pushes "non-racialism" as its official policy for non-Jews.
According to the Times of Israel , Netanyahu has reached a deal with the Jewish Home Party to grant that "national-religious party" a pair of ministerial posts after April's elections in exchange for it merging with the Otzma Yehudit party, whose name in Hebrew literally translates as "Jewish Power."
The Times of Israel reported that the Jewish Home party earlier agreed to run in the April elections jointly with the "National Union," party, which "has come under increasing pressure from Netanyahu to make an alliance with Otzma Yehudit and Eli Yishai's Yachad, arguing that a failure on those smaller parties' part to clear the electoral threshold could deprive his Likud of enough potential partners to form a ruling coalition."
The Jewish Home party is also, by the standards that the Jewish lobby imposes on European nations, "extreme far right," a nd most recently put up election posters in Israel warning Jews about the danger of marrying non-Jews.
Sep 14, 2018 | mg.co.za
Nationalism was an emancipatory political project during the anti-colonial struggles of the second half of the 20th century. It was not tribalist or communalist.
According to Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and Nationalism since 1780, its aim was to extend the size of the social, cultural and political group. It was not to restrict it or to separate it from others. Nationalism was a political programme divorced from ethnicity.
Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and religion as havens of safety and security.
When society fails us owing to job insecurity, and, concomitantly, with regard to housing and healthcare, one tends to fall back on one's ethnicity or religious identity as an ultimate guarantee.
Moreover, nationalism as a political programme depends on the idea of the state. It holds that a group defined as a "nation" has the right to form a territorial state and exercise sovereign power over it. But given the decline of the state, there are reasons to think that political nationalism has withdrawn as a real possibility.
By the "decline of the state" I do not mean that it no longer exists. The state has never been more present in the private life of individuals. It regulates the relations between men and women. It regulates their birth and death, the rearing of children, the health of individuals and so forth. The state is, today, ubiquitous.
What some people mean by the "decline of the state" is that, with the existence of transnational corporations, it is no longer the most important site of the reproduction of capital. The state has become managerial. Its function is to manage obstacles to liberalisation and free trade.
Perhaps that is one of the challenges of the 21st century. How is a "nation" possible, a "national community" that is not defined by ethnicity, on the one hand, and, on the other, that forsakes the desire to exercise sovereign power in general and, in particular, over a territorial state?
The university is perhaps the place where such a community can begin to be thought.
Rafael Winkler is an associate professor in the philosophy department at the University of Johannesburg
Feb 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Gesine Hammerling , Feb 2, 2019 8:20:01 PM | link@149:
Interestingly, the BAK Shalom group, which you called far-left, is one of the most fanatical pro-Israel lobby groups in Germany. In my opinion, being a supporter of Israel automatically means being far-right.
Dec 17, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com
Dave_P -> willpodmore , 23 Aug 2016 10:57The EU didn't impose austerity on the UK, its own government did. We don't have the euro, in case you haven't noticed. The US is our top overseas buyer. If we want more of that, we'll have to take something like TTIP or worse.
The EU was a voice for African, Caribbean and Pacific producers against US transnationals, and offered favorable terms. We've weakened that voice.
Brexit makes us more dependent on the IMF, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. They're not EU bodies.
Britain opposed EU democratisation for forty years by upholding national governments' veto powers over proposals supported by elected MEPs.
You voted against everything you claim to uphold. Because it was a vote against everything.
None of that's even the issue. Do you have an insight to offer beyond antipathy to the EU?
Jan 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Anne Jaclard , Jan 20, 2019 6:02:29 PM | link
On Integrity Initiative Endgame:
From Consortium News
It should be pointed out that the Integrity Initiative recently claimed on Twitter that some of the documents leaked in batch #4 were not theirs and had been misrepresented as part of the organisation.
It doesn't really matter, though: all that we know, anti-socialist shills writing propaganda on behalf of II (Nimmo, Cohen, Reid-Ross) have confirmed their own roles, and the Twitter account was proven to have pushed out slanderous material on Jeremy Corbyn.
Note that "misrepresented" could have referred to the inclusion of the Corbyn slide show document which was presented at but created by the II.
This organisation and all of those part of it should be treated as enemies of the people, as they have attacked, disingenuously and using smears,
– Jill Stein
-German Left Party
-French Left Party
-French Communist Party
-Greek Communist Party
-Norwegian Red Party
-Norwegian Socialist Left Party
-Swedish Left Party
-International Anti-NATO Groups
-Infiltrating Corbyn and Sanders campaigns
-Inserting propaganda anonymously into local media including the Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, The Times, the Guardian, and more
-Using social media to orchestrate hate and dismissal campaigns against those mentioned above
-Hosting events for collaboration between members
-Building online "clusters" to deploy and shape discourse in the media and elsewhere
By repeating or openly collaborating with:
-Center For A Stateless Society
uncle tungsten | Jan 20, 2019 6:18:59 PM | 16Thank you Anne Jaclard @ | 14
Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity.
I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people.
Jan 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
peterAUS , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMTBack to topic. This link, I believe, points into a very interesting direction. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-23/imperial-naivete-american-public I don't think that "naivete" is a correct word there. Some, perhaps, interesting excerpts:
.a public lulled into a warm and fuzzy sense of moral superiority based on the notion that we only go to war to save the good and punish the evil, and if we meddle in other nations' domestic affairs and elections, we're only doing so for their own good.
If we weren't a kindly, generous Empire, we'd let them go down the drain without trying to set them straight.
Key expression " moral superiority "
There is more:
. the American public naively assumes that their Imperial Project is so god-like in its powers and prowess that no other great power should be able to meddle in our domestic affairs and elections.
I don't think it's "naive" though. It's something else like, again:
there are no limits on our execution of power because we're morally superior
That is the key. That is what, deep in their hearts, Americans believe. We .are .better than .anybody .else. So, blaming "them", media, whatever no no that's a copout. Weak one. The crux is simple, eternal, hard wired: "I am better than you". "I can be homeless punk here, but, I am better than YOU." Feels good. That's all.
Jan 02, 2019 | www.foxnews.comTucker: America's goal is happiness, but leaders show no obligation to voters
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt, extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions. Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations, Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others -- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones, or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness. There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence. Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture, meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words, functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct. The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule. Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways, rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives, mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them. Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science. We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect 400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work -- consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana, marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners, the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that actually cares about families, the building block of everything.Video
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2, 2019.
Jan 10, 2019 | www.vox.com
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003 book The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the words of Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896. Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 4, 2019
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson wrote a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.-- Jeremy McLallan (@JeremyMcLellan) January 8, 2019
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing wrote of Carlson's monologue, and a response to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy , wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago, and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded. "I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in 1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana legalization means more teens are smoking weed ( this probably isn't true ). Someone, or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision making or a lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!-- Judah Maccabeets (@AdamSerwer) January 9, 2019
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the expansion of trans rights or creeping secularism than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in private prisons or an expansion of the militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market capitalism and efforts to fight inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by " demographic change ." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking, 'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For the record, libertarians have critiqued Carlson's monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
Jan 03, 2019 | countercurrents.org
As it becomes increasingly apparent that the populist billionaire business "Messiah" behind the mask of the "Trumpism" cult is merely in power to "Make America Great Again" by transferring even more wealth from the lower and middle classes to the top 1% of wealthiest Americans, the politics of rightwing extremism will intensify and even greater sociopolitical division is inevitable. Billionaires and millionaires behind rightwing populism represent a desperate effort to save the privileges that capitalists enjoy by driving a segment of society ideologically and politically to the extreme right even if this entails embracing even more austere police state methods, especially surveillance, than currently exist.
The Justice Department under Trump introduced harsher measures for petty crimes, loosening any safety net protections of minorities from police abuse, while easing up on regulations affecting white collar crime. Along with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny, anti-Semitism is in the broader mix that characterizes a segment of Trump supporters that the Republican Party mobilizes. For the Republican Party to continue catering to the establishment while claiming to be anti-establishment, populism is a useful vehicle as it breaks the solidarity of the working class by advancing the policies of social discrimination.
The neoliberal establishment would have achieved the same goals of capital concentration with a Democrat president in power. This was the case under both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama catering to a different popular base distinguished by traditional Democrat identity politics – feminists, gay rights, and greater integration of minorities into the capitalist mainstream. While Republican rhetoric and policies project false hope to rightwing elements from Reagan Democrats, Evangelicals to neo-Nazis that the social contract will be anti-elite and focused on the white majority feeling threatened by identity politics, Democrats remain focused on reviving the old Cold War with Russia and catering to Wall Street, while promoting cultural and lifestyle issues with a greater commitment to balance the welfare state with corporate welfare. Ironically, Democrat identity politics is actually just as divisive because it refuses to address issues along structural lines, thus leaving many among the masses to be duped by the promises of populist rhetoric.
Trumpism's Contradictions and American Jews, and Islamophobia
Although anti-Semitism has a long and ugly history, no minority group in US history has suffered greater discrimination and institutionalized racism than African-Americans. The white Anglo-Saxon majority has historically categorized ethnic immigrants in a hierarchy based on skin color, ethnic origin, and religion. American Jews were not exempt from ethnocentrism, remaining a favorite target of the KKK among other rightwing groups. Because class in some cases transcends ethnicity, race and religion, Jews that became capitalists or moved into middle class professions benefited from assimilation into the institutional mainstream much more than those of the same faith in the lower middle class and working class.
By the early 21 st century, American Jews were well integrated into the mainstream, reflecting society's diversity ideologically, politically, and socioeconomically. From 2000 until 2016, Jewish voting patterns indicate that between two-thirds and three-fourths supported the Democrat presidential candidates. Although these percentages are very similar to Hispanic Catholic voting trends, stereotypes deeply ingrained in society remain just below the thin façade of political correctness where saying the right thing in public is the only thing that matters. Many within the rightwing populist movement accept the stereotypes that Jews are in control of everything from Wall Street to the media, the political arena, higher education, and the entertainment industry.
Interestingly, it never even occurs to anti-Semites to ask why so many of the elites are Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is indicative that American racists believe it is natural to be Anglo-Saxon protestant and be among the elites because national identity rests with this category of people since the republic was founded. While it is true that Jews are in every sector of society, just as are Christians, a larger percentage of Jews is integrated into the capitalist class in comparison to other minorities especially blacks and Hispanics. However, it is blatantly false that Jews control the entire institutional structure and use it to advance some amorphous "Jewish agenda", as neo-Nazi and other conspiracy theorists propagate. On the contrary, throughout European and US history Jews have proved more loyal and more conformist to the institutional structure than any other minority.
Conspiracy theories about Jewish control of the institutional structure are the basis of anti-Semitism that has declined since the interwar era as much in the US as in Western Europe, though the same does not hold true for Eastern Europe. With the rise of populism in American politics during the presidential campaign of 2016, anti-Semitism assumed the spotlight once again, despite the fact that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner is Jewish with business and personal connections to Israel. Moreover, top administration officials in control of financial, economic and trade policy are also Jewish linked to Wall Street and specifically the multinational financial syndicate Goldman Sachs.
While it is true that all US presidents cater to Wall Street, and all presidents since Ronald Reagan have relied on former Goldman Sachs executives who have been invariably Jewish to conduct fiscal, economic, trade and foreign policy, it is especially noteworthy that Trump has long-standing links to Jewish billionaires. This in itself would not be unusual except that his has been using populist anti-big business, anti-elite rhetoric to appeal to populist elements among them neo-Nazis, KKK, and other varieties of racists and anti-Semites. The glaring contradiction that cannot be reconciled is that Trumpism symbolizes and emboldens ethnocentrism while the administration includes millionaire and billionaire American Jews who are in the awkward position of accepting rightwing populism so that they can advance neoliberal policies.
It is hardly surprising that some emboldened Trump supporters have engaged in anti-Semitic activities, assuming that their leader really represents the extremist white Christian masses rather than the multi-ethnic, including Jewish, capitalist elites. In March 2017, prominent Jewish-American groups demanded that Trump denounce anti-Semitism in light of a rise in documented incidents in different parts of the country. The corporate media exposed this issue, but like Jewish organization the media did not frame it in its larger context of rightwing populism where anti-Semitism is but one of many aspects of racism. Trump's refusal to accept responsibility for his brand of populism giving rise to anti-Semitism was revealing and somewhat shocking to all people embracing pluralism but especially to Jews who assumed he would be friendlier because his daughter is married to Kushner.
Trump had no choice but to reject the suggestion that Trumpism entails anti-Semitism. Admitting that Trumpism leads to anti-Semitism would have forced the president to accept that his ideological/political movement is politically and culturally racist at its core and that his administration is driven by the politics of exclusion rather than integration in a pluralistic society. Even more alarming, the entire Republican establishment with few exceptions refused to denounce the racist core of Trumpism, thus demonstrating that the party clings to the rightwing populist base even when some within that base are neo-Nazis.
Contrary to how the media and many analysts who focused on the cult of personality see Trumpism, this phenomenon did not fall to earth from space. It has deep roots in both parties, but especially in the Republican Party going as far back as the 1920s. Despite "Trumpism" as an integral part of the Republican Party and American society, anti-Semitism has actually remained relatively low in comparison with Western Europe and especially Eastern Europe where it is only exceeded by Islamic countries. Of course, opinion polls and hate crime reports cannot possibly measure with any degree of accuracy the level of anti-Semitism across society. People conceal their attitudes toward Jews as they do toward Muslims and blacks because in a pluralistic society where political correctness takes precedence overt racism is unacceptable – politically incorrect and bad for business given that the American consumer base is multi-ethnic.
Some analysts were encouraged that anti-Semitism has been on the decline in the last two decades because of the rise of Islamophobia, a form of religious discrimination that spiked after the Iranian Revolution and assumed astronomical proportions after 9/11. However, the rise of rightwing populism, which includes Christians driven by prejudice against other faiths, has emboldened anti-Semitism as much in the US and across Europe in the past two decades when the neoliberal elites celebrated the triumph of globalization. Neoliberalism is the catalyst in the rise of globalization, the rise of rightwing populism and the rise of Islamophobia in the last two decades.
Combined with a persistently anti-Islam bias in the media that has been reinforcing Islamophobia and the rise of rightwing populism aimed at Islam in general and Muslim immigrants specifically, the war on terror has been a catalytic factor in the change of mass attitudes from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia. The fact that Israel has been pursuing apartheid policies toward Palestinians and pursuing a militarist approach to foreign policy has worked in its favor when it comes to attracting mainstream conservative and Cold War liberal elements across the US and Western Europe, thus transferring the historic focus of prejudice from Jews to Muslims.
France's National Front under Marine Le Pen is a good example of a political party that has been focusing more on the Muslim enemy where all bourgeois political parties also focused rather than clinging to anti-Semitism that carries a political and social stigma. In an interview in June 2014, she stated: "I do not stop repeating it to French Jews. Not only is the National Front not your enemy, but it is without a doubt the best shield to protect you. It stands at your side for the defense of our freedoms of thought and of religion against the only real enemy, Islamist fundamentalism." https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/marine-le-pen-national-front-jews-muslims/523302/
Ironically, the rising tide of populism across Western and Eastern Europe as well as Trump's America has reinvigorated racists of all sorts, despite the official policies of governments to support Israeli apartheid policies and militarism while keeping Islamophobia in the forefront of the political dialogue. The fact that the US claims to support the war on terror while remaining a major arms supplier to countries like Saudi Arabia where most jihadists have originated and where the regime has been supplying jihadist rebels with weapons in both Syria and Yemen does not seem to register any more with liberals than with conservatives. While the US and EU arms manufacturers make billions in profits selling weapons to countries with a history of supporting jihadists, the Western media and governments continue to promote the myth about strengthening national security against Islamic terrorism, thus promoting Islamophobia and xenophobia.
Although anti-Semitism has deep roots throughout the Western World as does Islamophobia, many Christians learned anti-Semitism from their families while they learned about Islamophobia from mainstream media and politicians since the Iranian Revolution. Overt or subtle hiding behind political correctness, religious prejudice is convenient for opportunistic bourgeois politicians, for the media and pundits when there are serious structural problems in the economy as in 2008 great recession. Racists default the rise in unemployment, stagnant wages, and political polarization following 2008 to Jewish elites and immigrant workers rather than the political economy predicated on socioeconomic inequality and political marginalization.
The neoliberal system that creates greater socioeconomic inequality thrives on racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia because it distracts focus from the root causes of structural problems in society. Rightwing populism in the US and Europe finds a popular response from angry middle class and working class that are unable to discern the structural inequality that the political economy creates. Blaming Jews, Arabs, Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities because the system does not integrate the "native majority" into the upward trajectory of the mainstream is simple and convenient because it also fulfills an emotional need to vent. Adolph Hitler's belief that people need someone to hate rather than abstract systems and institutions beyond their comprehension works just as well today as it did in the turbulent 1930s.
Is Antisemitism on the rise?
In January 2017 there were 40 to 68 bomb threats (depending on the source) against Jewish community centers in 27 states, with Jewish cemeteries the most well publicized targets. When we consider that the number of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses in 2015 were twice as many as in 2014, it appears that anti-Semitism had been rising under the Obama administration pursuing neoliberal policies. Statistics from public opinion polls indicate that anti-Semitic incidents rose immediately after Trump won the presidency, something that hardly surprised many critics who had been warning that such is the price of appealing to extreme rightwing elements for political support.
FBI statistics on hate crimes indicate that there have not been significant changes since the presidential election of 2012, but threats against Jewish centers and Jewish journalists did experience a spike in threats once Trump won the election. It is noteworthy that the reporting of anti-Semitic incidents is more accurate and prevalent than the reporting of racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice of other groups that the media routinely overlooks both at the local but especially the national level. Hate crimes motivated by religion have targeted Jews and Muslims since Trump's election, although Islamophobia spiked sharply since 9/11 and it is under-reported in comparison with anti-Semitic incidents. While institutional anti-Semitism is very low partly because of the cordial US-Israeli ties but also because Jews are more thoroughly integrated in society, the same is not the case for institutional racism aimed at Muslims and blacks.
Because Trump won with a populist appeal, it was inevitable that xenophobia aimed at Muslims and Latin Americans as main targets, racism, sexism, homophobia, and chauvinism as main cultural traits would become even more acceptable driven by the politics of division. In very subtle ways, rightwing news organizations that have been supporting Trump have been promoting social discrimination; some daring to cross the line to attack Jews backing liberal causes and the Democrat Party. Although anti-Semitism finds no expression in public policy as does Islamophobia, America's ideological orientation has become so rightwing than the Democrats find it necessary to attack the Republican president by reviving Cold War anti-Russia propaganda. Instead of remaining focused on specific allegations of corruption, collusion, money laundering, and above all Republican policies that worsen inequality and weaken the middle class and workers, Democrats committed to neoliberal policies are just as guilty as Republicans for avoiding the key issue of social justice.
Anti-Semitism among Liberals and Conservatives
Anti-Semitism is subtle even among those liberal elements that cling to political correctness often used to conceal real intentions. Leftist critics of Israel are driven by the apartheid conditions and Israel's militarist approach to foreign policy and by the neoliberal orientation of the entire Western World that the Israeli business and political elites support. Critics are concerned that the Israeli government, not people, has come a very long way in emulating the Third Reich's racism when it comes to treatment of Palestinians. This does not mean that all leftists are free of anti-Semitism and they are not using Israel's horrific policies to justify racism. Because it is true that anti-Zionism can lead to legitimizing anti-Semitism, it is essential to denounce any form of discrimination and differentiate between government policy and ethnic or religious prejudice. Labeling any critic of Israeli anti-Semite merely for supporting peace in the Middle East is propaganda and a sign of using the pretext of anti-Semitism to suppress dissent.
Rightwing elements are more comfortable in anti-Semitism because it is an integral part of their ideological orientation. Besides the KKK, neo-Nazi groups and some new elements that emerged with the explosion of rightwing media, anti-Semitism as an integral part of the ideological rightwing has historical roots among Christian business and political elites that looked the other way during the 1930s when the Third Reich was systematically persecuting Jews. Anti-Semitism from the right has found expression from a number of social media outlets where the white nationalist ALT-RIGHT among others has increased their anti-Semitic attacks with hate speech. The anti-Defamation League reported 2.6 million tweets aimed at Jewish journalists in 12 months, summer 2015 to summer 2016. Although Trump does not use anti-Semitic rhetoric and he has long-standing ties to Jewish millionaires and billionaires, many of his working class Christian supporters assume he is talking about Jews in the liberal "fake" media when he speaks of 'enemies of the people'. https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-task-force-issues-report-detailing-widespread-anti-semitic-harassment-of
As the latest layer building on existing ones of American rightwing populism, Trumpism is indicative of an ideological, political and cultural orientation, but also a reflection of one's values as well as aspirations and illusions about what a populist regime led by a Messiah businessman can deliver to its middle and working class base. Deeply imbedded in Trumpism is anti-Semitism from the extreme right that has gained legitimacy because Trump is president, no matter his ties to Jewish business elites. While the liberal left as represented by Senator Bernie Sanders, the son of Jewish immigrants, has also criticized the financial and media elites that include Jews, there is hardly a comparison between the Sanders movement to pursue social justice for all people and the politics of hate and division that Trump and his Republican propagandists promoted.
Evangelical Christians: Friends of Israel, Enemies of secular American-Jews?
Ever since the preeminence of neoconservatives in the Reagan decade of the eighties, there has been a strange alliance between American Jews and Evangelicals. Besides their common distaste for Muslims, their common Cold War militarist foreign policy and their common conservative social values that brought these two groups closer together they seem like natural allies, using religious dogmatism to justify imperialist foreign policies and social inequality. Evangelicals have consistently remained in a military-solution mode when it came to foreign policy hotspots and viewed Israel as defender of the Christian West against the Muslims becoming radicalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
The alliance between American Jews and Evangelicals began showing cracks in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, but especially in 2016 when many Jews backed Hillary Clinton while Evangelicals sided with Trump who promised them Reagan-style social and judicial conservatism, along with jobs and economic nationalism intended to "make American great again", partly implying the integration of white Christians into the mainstream from which they had been excluded under the neoliberal regime of Bill Clinton and Obama. Besides the Evangelicals vote for Trump and the American secular Jews largely backing Clinton in 2016, the rift between Evangelicals and Jews was evident in the "liberal" vs. the populist rightwing media wars over the Trump administration's policies and personalities such as Steve Bannon, former Goldman Sachs banker and Breitbart news executive and no stranger to racism, white nationalism, and anti-Semitism.
Israeli neoliberal and militarist elites continue to hope that they can have Evangelicals supporting Israel, just as they supported Trump win the election. The Israeli-Evangelical alliance appears on firm ground, but it is becoming increasingly problematic because Trumpism not only entails xenophobia, ethnocentrism and nationalism, but anti-Semitism among many of its voters, even some younger Evangelicals. The Republicans and the rightwing media have tried to identify liberal Jews as the enemy, but such rhetoric only reinforces anti-Semitism. Evangelicals and rightwing media have hammered at the close identification of the Democrats with Jewish billionaires like George Soros famous for his support of liberal causes. This association has reinforced anti-Semitism among the rightwing populists, largely because the rightwing media and politicians keep at it.
Ironically, the same criticism of Jewish billionaires and their liberal causes is also made across much of Europe, especially in Eastern Europe where the commitment to diversity and pluralism is a pale imitation of what exists in Scandinavian countries. The same criticism is never leveled against liberal Anglo-Saxon billionaires like Warren Buffet or others, projecting the impression that Jewish money somehow corrupts the political process more than Protestant money. The obvious hypocrisy on the part of right wingers including Evangelicals regarding Jewish money vs. Protestant money influencing the political arena extends to Israel treated as a friendly militarist state while Muslim militarist states are deserving of condemnation.
What would happen to Jews in America and the relationship with Israel if they lost support from evangelical Christians?
Neoliberals from the Clinton and neoconservative leftovers from the Reagan decade have cultivated close ties between American Evangelicals and Israel but the relationship is showing signs of deterioration largely because the younger Evangelicals question the wisdom of one-sided US foreign policy. Although public opinion polls indicate that American Jews largely mistrust Evangelicals, Evangelical organizations remain committed to support of Israel as a frontline state against the Arabs and radical Islam. This ideological commitment is largely based on money pouring into Evangelical churches and their affiliate NGOs that are tools of recruitment and indoctrination. The highly organized Evangelical groups using the media, educational centers and Christian media remain a political force that helped to elect Trump while keeping the populist wing of the Republican Party strong.
The irony of Evangelical support for Israel is that some of its members are anti-Semitic. Ever since the Reagan administration, rightwing Christian fundamentalist elements, which American Jews and the Israeli lobby have been trying to mobilize, are not just anti-Muslim but some are anti-Semitic as well. While the war on terror shifted the focus of American Evangelicals to the imminent Muslim threat as they understand it, this does not mean that anti-Semitism disappeared. On the contrary, as socioeconomic conditions deteriorate, and as a segment of the population perceives that Jewish elites from Wall Street to media and Hollywood are to partly blame for the elusive American Dream not trickling down to the masses, anti-Semitism will rise and support for Israel will diminish. Trump's 'America First' economic nationalism and slashing foreign aid as part of neo-isolationism will eventually impact Israel, especially as the administration will drive budgetary deficits and the public debt to record levels because of corporate tax cuts and more corporate welfare at the expense of health and social programs.
Regardless of who is in the White House, the US will always support Israel diplomatically because both political parties have done so since 1948 and they will continue to do so for many reasons. This is not only because of the very powerful Israeli lobby, but also the fact that Israel serves the convenient role of perpetuating destabilization in the Middle East that helps the defense industry of the US. Despite the apartheid conditions toward the Palestinians, Israel will remain a key US ally even if younger Evangelicals question US support and even if a segment of the rightwing Republican popular base becomes more anti-Semitic.
The political correctness rhetoric of liberals and conservatives alike notwithstanding, the socioeconomic effects of neoliberal policies on society gives rise to ultra-rightwing ideological and political movements. Through the media, the political and socioeconomic elites help to indoctrinate and mobilize the masses into the rightwing camp using it as the popular base of the Republican Party that caters to Wall Street, as much as the Democrats use identity politics to mobilize their popular base while also catering to Wall Street. Given that the two-party system represents the interests of the same elites despite ideological and political affiliations among the elites, the masses merely follow instead of breaking away to create a class-based grassroots movement that would bring social justice through systemic change. Rightwing populism becomes the grassroots movement and its followers are convinced that it is the vehicle to the fulfillment of the social contract; an illusion that conservative politicians, media and pundits constantly reinforce.
Mobilizing the remnants of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, Trumpism gained momentum because neoliberal policies exacerbated socioeconomic polarization under Obama. Although Trumpism will fade away along with Trump at some point, its imprint on society will remain as did that of Reaganism that helped to bring a segment of the population father to the rightwing ideological domain where discrimination assumes an unspoken legitimacy just below the surface of political correctness. The rightwing orientation of society as an integral part of deradicalization of the masses is essential to maintaining the political economy of inequality, although it comes at the cost of the absence of social justice and social discrimination.
The bourgeois value system is based on individualism, but bourgeois institutions and policies have historically promoted discrimination on the basis of group identity disregarding the merits of the individual. Like all forms of prejudice rooted in ignorance, fear and social conditioning, anti-Semitism is no different. It is futile to assume that anti-Semitism can be mitigated in isolation of all other forms of prejudice separate from the larger issue of a socially just society. All social, economic and political indicators point not to greater social discrimination and prejudice in a society where the mass concentration of wealth at the expense of the middle and working classes has resulted in the search for enemies to blame, whether Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, etc.
As the US slowly creeps down the road of more authoritarianism and a surveillance state, becoming less tolerant of differences and diversity amid its inevitable decline as the world's preeminent economic power, it will have a much weaker middle class and a working class with lower living standards. A segment of the population whose identity rests with the flag and the cross will become more open to the idea of a police militarized state that enforces conformity through constant surveillance and stricter laws that punish petty criminals while allowing the legalized corporate thieves to enjoy a privileged status in society.
In the absence of embracing human rights and social justice there cannot possibly be an end to anti-Semitism any more than any other form of prejudice. If the political economy feed a culture of prejudice because it has an interest in maintaining the institutional structure, then it is hardly surprising that prejudice would be widespread. Under neoliberalism thriving under Trumpist populism, various forms of prejudice will manifest themselves once the promise of "Make America Great Again" never filters down to the masses.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the World Bank and IMF in the world.
Jan 02, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jen , Dec 31, 2018 3:36:34 PM | link
If Syria wins the award for Country of the Year 2018, I'd hate to see who gets the Wooden Spoon for 2018. There must be quite a few serious contenders for that prize!
Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military establishment.
Jan 02, 2019 | www.unz.com
geokat62 , says: January 1, 2019 at 7:50 pm GMT@wayfarer
How the Globalists Stole Our Home
Great video. I especially enjoyed these remarks:
In these times, the real political debate is centered around the issues of migration and national identity. It's what Brexit was all about. It's the reason the one thing all Trump supporters really want him to do, is to build the wall. It would be an international symbol of our longing for and right to nationhood a billion dollar monument to nationalism and a trigger for nationalist revival.
This is why the forces of globalism will throw everything at stopping it's construction. If Trump leaves office and that wall is not built, his presidency will have been for naught.
Dec 31, 2018 | www.unz.com
The Geopolitics of Trump's Trade War
Most recently, a dissident economist and failed California politician named Peter Navarro has parlayed his hostility toward China into the role of key architect of Donald Trump's "trade war" against Beijing. Like his Russian counterpart Alexander Dugin, Navarro is another in a long line of intellectuals whose embrace of geopolitics changed the trajectory of his career.
Raised by a single mom who worked secretarial jobs to rent one-bedroomapartments where he slept on the couch, Navarro went to college at Tufts on a scholarship and earned a doctorate in economics from Harvard. Despite that Ivy League degree, he remained an angry outsider, denouncing the special interests "stealing America" in his first book and later, as a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, branding San Diego developers "punks in pinstripes." A passionate environmentalist, in 1992 Navarro plunged into politics as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of San Diego, denouncing his opponent's husband as a convicted drug-money launderer and losing when he smirked as she wept during their televised debate.
For the next 10 years, Navarro fought losing campaigns for everything from city council to Congress. He detailed his crushing defeat for a seat in the House of Representatives in a tell-all book , San Diego Confidential, that dished out disdain for that duplicitous "sell out" Bill Clinton, dumb "blue-collar detritus" voters, and just about everybody else as well.
Following his last losing campaign for city council, Navarro spent a decade churning out books attacking a new enemy: China. His first "shock and awe" jeremiad in 2006 told horror stories about that country's foreign trade; five years later, Death By China was filled with torrid tales of "bone-crushing, cancer-causing, flammable, poisonous, and otherwise lethal products" from that land. In 2015, a third book turned to geopolitics, complete with carefully drawn maps and respectful references to Captain Mahan, to offer an analysis of how China's military was pursuing a relentless strategy of "anti-access, area denial" to challenge the U.S. Navy's control over the Western Pacific.
To check China, the Pentagon then had two competing strategies -- "Air-Sea Battle," in which China's satellites were to be blinded, knocking out its missiles, and "Offshore Control," in which China's entire coastline was to be blockaded by mining six maritime choke points from Japan to Singapore. Both, Navarro claimed, were fatally flawed. Given that, Navarro's third book and a companion film ( endorsed by one Donald Trump) asked: What should the United States do to check Beijing's aggression and its rise as a global power? Since all U.S. imports from China, Navarro suggested, were "helping to finance a Chinese military buildup," the only realistic solution was "the imposition of countervailing tariffs to offset China's unfair trade practices."
Just a year after reaching that controversial conclusion, Navarro joined the Trump election campaign as a policy adviser and then, after the November victory, became a junior member of the White House economic team. As a protectionist in an administration initially dominated by globalists, he would be excluded from high-level meetings and, according to Time Magazine , "required to copy chief economic adviser Gary Cohn on all his emails." By February 2018, however, Cohn was on his way out and Navarro had become assistant to the president, with his new trade office now the co-equal of the National Economic Council.
As the chief defender of Trump's belief that "trade wars are good and easy to win," Navarro has finally realized his own geopolitical dream of attempting to check China with tariffs. In March, the president slapped heavy ones on Chinese steel imports and, just a few weeks later, promised to impose more of them on $50 billion of imports. When those started in July, China's leaders retaliated against what they called "typical trade bullying," imposing similar duties on American goods. Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy," with Navarro at his elbow, Trump escalated in September, adding tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods and threatening another $267 billion worth if China dared retaliate. Nonetheless, Beijing hit back, this time on just $60 billion in goods since 95% of all U.S. imports had already been covered.
Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with China ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports -- a clear sign that Navarro's bold geopolitical vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the world economy, none of us can yet know, particularly that would-be geopolitical grandmaster Peter Navarro.
The Desire to be Grandmaster of the Universe
Though such experts usually dazzle the public and the powerful alike with erudition and boldness of vision, their geopolitical moves often have troubling long-term consequences. Mahan's plans for Pacific dominion through offshore bases created a strategic conundrum that plagued American defense policy for a half-century. Brzezinski's geopolitical lunge at the Soviet Union's soft Central Asian underbelly helped unleash radical Islam. Today, Alexander Dugin's use of geopolitics to revive Russia's dominion over Eurasia has placed Moscow on a volatile collision course with Europe and the United States. Simultaneously, Peter Navarro's bold gambit to contain China's military and economic push into the Pacific with a trade war could, if it persists, produce untold complications for our globalized economy.
No matter how deeply flawed such geopolitical visions may ultimately prove to be, their brief moments as official policy have regularly shaped the destiny of nations and of empires in unpredictable, unplanned, and often dangerous ways. And no matter how this current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power ( Dispatch Books).
joun , says: December 3, 2018 at 1:56 am GMTSi1ver1ock , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:03 am GMT
Dugin, regardless of what minor success he had ten years ago, is not influential in the Kremlin. He did not orchestrate Russia's absorption of Crimea. Simple strategic needs demanded that Crimea be absorbed, and a flawless Russian execution of an ambitious plan won the day.
Peter Navarro is correct w/r/t China. Our trading relationship with China has been a disaster for our economy (to which I mean our ability to have an economy absent financial shenanigans) and USG has effectively funded China's rise. There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. I don't really care if Navarro has failed at other tasks in his life. He is correct on this one.Sean , says: December 9, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Damn! Sounds just like me. Anyway, the US has made a lot of mistakes. It transferred much of its manufacturing base to China and much of its technology. The Chinese see a chance to break away from the US economically and in technology.
The US invested in China's future. China invested in its future. Which is why China has a future.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/03/what-is-made-in-china-2025-and-why-is-it-a-threat-to-trumps-trade-goals/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79ef31c78b0danimalogic , says: December 16, 2018 at 11:12 am GMT
Seeing geography as a decisive factor in the course of human history can be construed as a bleak view of the world, which is why it is disliked in some intellectual circles. It suggests that nature is more powerful than man, and that we can only go so far in determining our own fate.
Splitting the globe into ten distinct regions, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor Tim Marshall redresses our techno-centric view of the world and suggests that our key political driver continues to be our physical geography. Beginning with Russia (and its bewildering eleven time-zones), we are treated to an illuminating, border-by-border disassembly of what makes the world what it is; why, for instance, China and India will never fall into conflict (the Himalayas), or why the Ukraine is such a tactical jewel in the crown. With its panoptic view over our circumstance, Prisoners of Geography makes a compelling case around how the physical framework of the world itself has defined our history. It's one of those books that prompts real reflection and one that on publication absolutely grasped the imagination of our customers, ensuring it as a guaranteed entrant to our 2016 Paperbacks of the Year.
'One of the best books about geopolitics you could imagine: reading it is like having a light shone on your understanding.' – Nicholas Lezard,@jounAnon  Disclaimer , says: December 31, 2018 at 5:24 am GMT
"There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. "
Quite right. However – that horse has long bolted. And now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping).
Unfortunately, circumstances demand a radical & imaginative response & even harder, a realisation that the horse has bolted.Puzzled , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:33 am GMT
Dear Mr. McCoy:
Now that you're here, you should read the Saker more. I'll pose this question though, If Russia and China are hell bent on imperial expansion, why don't they show any interest in Mongolia? Fertile land, rich mineral resources, a tiny population incapable of resistance it would be a no brainier. The reason they don't is because they are not imperial powers. Also, is empire a good thing? In every historical example it has followed the same pattern and failed. Civilisations however endure through the ages.Anon  Disclaimer , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
" Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar " was where I noted this essayist is a fool and stopped reading. Russians! Russians! Russians everywhere!
*vomit*@Puzzled ire is failing and wrote this insightful essay on why. http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176007/tomgram%3A_alfred_mccoy%2C_washington%27s_great_game_and_why_it%27s_failing_jilles dykstra , says: December 31, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT
But since then has gone on to muse how it might be extended. My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people and is leading to the destruction of the republic and the American people. The sooner it ends the better, and if Trump can speed up its demise, then he is our guy.Counterinsurgency , says: December 31, 2018 at 10:25 am GMT
A very interesting article, for me, but, I suppose, for quite other reasons than most here expect. The essence of interest is in the last two paragraphs.
In the first of these two those men are mentioned who by geopolitical ideas caused world wide disasters. If they did, I do not know. The question 'did Napoleon make history or did history make Napoleon' still is a difficult one among historians, and will remain difficult, is my idea. The man not mentioned in this paragraph is Hitler.
Then we get the ominous last paragraph, someone grabbing world wide power for geopolitical reasons, a great menace.
The essence of good propaganda is not telling lies, but telling just half truths. Not mentioned is that the area that now is Germany for maybe hundreds of years could not feed the population, had to import food. In order to be able to import one must export, a country with not enough agricultural production naturally must export industrial products, to fabricate these one needs raw materials.
Not for nothing both WWI and WWII had geopolitical causes, German economic expansion to the SW and E, economic expansion that threatened, in the British view, the autarcic British empire.
The implication of the last paragraph for me is clear, beware of the next Hitler. If the author has someone in mind who will unleash the last world war is not clear to me.@Puzzled y_, section on "managing enemies".Biff , says: December 31, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT
Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working.
It's like the Federal German republic trying 90 year old people who were drafted as teenagers to be concentration camp guards in late WW II, when the Reich was scraping through the bottom of the manpower barrel, or like the British digging up Cromwell's bones (see Wikipedia, "Oliver Cromwell", section: "Death and posthumous execution"). Not convincing.
CounterinsurgencyHerald , says: December 31, 2018 at 11:33 am GMT
Alfred McCoy isn't the exact polar opposite of Bill Kristol who is wrong about everything , but McCoy does have a pretty good track record of being mostly correct about the issues he covers, nevertheless, he still reads like an opinion column. He also seems bonded by how he sees the American empire being some sort of force of benevolence when it acts and reacts in the same manner as any other empire that's come and gone – and of course he loathes the idea of the next empire simply by default(they'll brag about freedom too Alfred). And of course, in the realm of geopolitics, he never really mentions the bastard child; which leaves a gaping hole in his analysis.
My guess is McCoy's basically on the right track. Not exactly, but he'll get you out of the woods.Alfred , says: December 31, 2018 at 12:41 pm GMT
Spot on. The reference to Russia waging cyberwar was an early warning that reading this long article would be a waste of time.Jayzerbee , says: December 31, 2018 at 12:41 pm GMT
For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism
It gets a bit boring reading about how aggressive Putin is and how he wants to reconquer all the territories that were voluntarily given up by his predecessors. How exactly would Russia benefit by reaquiring the Baltic States or Poland? These countries are on life-support. Poland get $20bn annually in direct and indirect subsidies from the EU. As for Ukraine, what possible benefit to Russia would it be to have an extra 35 million people who are broke. Ukrainians today spend half their income on food and that other half on heat – and that in a country with a very cold winter.
Let's not forget that there would not have been a "Berlin Crisis" if Stalin had not given parts of Berlin to the USA, the UK and France. Can you imagine the USA doing something similar? This whole article is a real let down. I am disappointed. I guess every barrel has to have a rotten apple or two.onebornfree , says: Website December 31, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
I would add that in my life, Henry Kissinger was the other supreme geopolitical theorist who attempted to establish a multipolar geopolitics over a bipolar one. Keep in mind that it was he who essentially argued that China must be recognized in order to blunt the USSR. Nixon thus became the one who opened China to the US, so that in theory the world was to be divided into the Russia pole; the China pole; the American/NATO pole, and the "Third World" pole. With a dash of Mahan added to the mix, all would be balanced and stable, or so Kissinger argued. Hmmmm, maybe not!Anonymous  Disclaimer , says: December 31, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
"Chain chain chain, chain of fools"
Also, perhaps read "Hormegeddon" by the great Bill Bonner:
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/@Miggle ext">jilles dykstra , says: December 31, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
Are you for real? Have you looked at where these two respective areas are geographically? Hell, their borders aren't even adjacent.
As for China's interest in Tibet: what was once's part of the Empire will always be part of the Empire. Tibets been part of the empire twice now, first under Genghis' Yuan Dynasty and again during under the Qing. That simple fact means from now until the sun goes supernova, for China to be considered unified, Tibet must be a part of it. No ifs or buts.
That's not to mention the strategic considerations of occupying the high ground vis a vis the sub-continentals as well as the area being the source of several great rivers. You'd have to be a madman to give that kind of advantage up.@Anon Ghandi was of the opinion that the people of India, forgot the number, 100 million or more ?, served 400.000 rich Britons.ThreeCranes , says: December 31, 2018 at 1:41 pm GMT
The Roman empire, I'd say 1% rich, 99% poor.
The tsarist empire, not much better.
The German empire again the exception, nowhere else at the end of the 19th century were common people in comparable living conditions.
The EU empire, EP members tax free incomes of some € 200.000 a year, plus an extravagant pension system.
Verhofstadt, additional income, not tax free, of at least € 450.000 a year.
Declarations, Schulz has been accused of spending € 700.000 in a year, among other things he liked a glass of wine.Patrick Armstrong , says: Website December 31, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
When it suits their purpose, writers on economics–I won't call them Economists–praise the tiger-like speed and agility with which Capitalism responds to the vagaries of pressures and demands that arise in world markets. But when they're engaging in public relations we get this:
"Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that " trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy ," .. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the world economy
which throw a protective cloak over a poor, picked-upon capitalism which is, apparently, incapable of getting out of its own way.SteveM , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin. No, there is no Russian cyberwar. Putin's aims are Russia's recovery from the disasters of communism (a road to a blind alley as he has called it) and defending Russia against NATO's expansion, colour revolutions and numerous false accusations.
Beijing is the place to look today for big strategic thinking.@Puzzled reasons would be the last. Because the Europeans would find of other sources and shut out Russia as being an unreliable business partner. Moreover, Russia is now the largest exporter of wheat and is developing export levels of production in soybeans and pork. You can't sell to countries that you have wrecked militarily.Digital Samizdat , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
It's the U.S., not Russia that is playing the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla with its war-mongering, economic warfare and global subversion.
Like Puzzled, when I read that stupid, irrational line by Alfred McCoy, I simply stopped reading. Because nobody that dense about obvious geo-political reality deserves to be read.therevolutionwas , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin.
No kidding. This is what happens when you get your Russian news from the Times and the Beeb. I mean, if Dugin were such a Kremlin favorite, how could he have lost his job at Moscow State University? You'd think he could just pick up the phone, call 'Uncle Vova', and get his job back!
Of course Putin is a Eurasianist, but that's not because Dugin told him to be one. It's because every Russian ruler has been a Eurasianist for centuries now. Why? Just look at a map: Russia is located in Eurasia. Would we therefore expect the Russians to be Pan-Africanists or something else? Naturally they're going to be Eurasianists. They learned long ago that if they don't dominate Eurasia, somebody else will -- and that will cause security problems for Russia. I can't say I hold that against them. It's not as though the US would take kindly to some foreign empire coming on over to the Western Hemisphere and setting up shop, say, in Latin America. In fact, just consider how Washington reacted when the Soviets concluded an alliance with Cuba. There was no talk about the 'sovereignty of small nations' coming from the wallscreen then!@jounReuben Kaspate , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
What financial shenanigans? And how has the US effectively funded China's rise? And how do tariffs destroy China ? (tariffs are like shooting yourself in the foot)@AnonymousReuben Kaspate , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:52 pm GMT
Tibet is the Achilles Heel of China it's there where the over confident Middle Kingdom will die the death of a thousand paper cuts!@AnonReuben Kaspate , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
Fertile land? Are you out of your freaking wits, Anon ? You can't grow shit in Mongolia!Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 31, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
My prediction for 2019: America will remain the hyperpower for the next 81 years; thereafter, I couldn't give a schitt!@therevolutionwasUnrepentant Conservative , says: December 31, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
Analysis of US investment in China would explain a lot. It is zero? I do not think so!!!!!!!!!Agent76 , says: December 31, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
Beware of self-styled strategic thinkers attempting to revive flagging careers and gain influence.Sean , says: December 31, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
The cause for poverty is located at the Pentagon because they own the national debt! When if ever will the Joint Chiefs be put on trial for these treasonous Wars and lost trillions?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the *Pentagon* one of the *largest* landowners worldwide.
Dec 21, 2013 Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions
The Pentagon has secured a 630 billion dollar budget for next year, even though it's failed to even account for the money it's received since 1996. A whopping 8.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer cash have gone to defence programmes – none of which has been audited.@Ilyana_Rozumova between other countries and with its own colonies. As the Dutch comparative advantage was frozen out, their military aggression declined with it. America sitting on its hands while China becomes a giant Hong Kong and countries all over Eurasia fall under its sway would by likely to lead to a very nasty war that America would loose and loose badly. It is better to try now to stop China growing that big and dangerous by declining to trade with them under conditions that will inevitably make them grow too large to fight. Will trade barriers to China work well enough? Probably not because they are past the lift off stage now (Carter did too good a job), but it is worth a try.wayfarer , says: December 31, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMTnever-anonymous , says: December 31, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT
There is opportunity for an American renaissance and really the only practical solution for its people – that is to swiftly and decidedly push its pathetic government aside – and begin rapidly re-educating, re-training, re-tooling, and re-building a next-generation manufacturing base.
The Next Manufacturing Revolution is Herejilles dykstra , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat. Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex.@Sean ised an efficient military staff, efficient in planning. The Prussian army was the first to make extensive use of railways, first time after the French 1870 attack. Very capable people, Germans. Red Army use of railways even in 1941 was a mess.Lin , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
The GB preparations for the occupation of neutral Norway in April 1940, also a mess.
Pity quoted book is in German and with gothic letters, Ludendorff shows with extensive map material how the Germans in WWI fought a two front, sometimes even three front war. Just possible through detailed transport planning.
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918@joun5371 , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:52 pm GMT
As I said before, rhetorics such as 'USG has effectively funded China's rise' are just over-exaggeration if not BS. Facts:
–Foreign investments only constitute a small % of Chinese domestic investment,
–The majority of foreign Investment in china are NOT from US.
–Total investment in China in recent years amount to $trillions per year
If one cares to examine the major industrial sectors in China , like hi-speed rail, steel, photovoltaic panels, electricity, energy,.. automobiles Only in the auto sector the americans have a sizable role because the yanks want market access.Ben Sampson , says: December 31, 2018 at 8:05 pm GMT
Numerous historical howlers in this piece.Agent76 , says: December 31, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires.
empires, traditional ones, are now altogether too costly, especially approaching their end. the world wont tolerate that anymore. the credit empire is working so far but the people have cottoned on to that. to end global banking power simply take over the banks, and recuse all debt for they were fraudulently accrued.
all banking will then by need be worker co-ops able to deal with all the financial services required by society..no conglomerates required
the capitalists will probably try a desperate military gambit to try maintain their empire but that wont work. they are already outgunned unless they decide to take the world down with them.
but I don't think we will have to worry about such trade 'grandmasters' farting around with the world for too much longer. the end of imperialism will make such work redundant
and if the democracy does not replace capitalism and the elite wins, it's a Brave New World we looking at. Brilliant geneticist bent on engineering humans. brilliant mind controllers, psychiatrists and such would be useful job qualifications to have, not trade specialist.
Brave New World also makes the trade 'genius' redundantniceland , says: December 31, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
December 31, 2018 War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US.
June 10, 2014 Drug War?
American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production
http://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-war-american-troops-are-protecting-afghan-opium-u-s-occupation-leads-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053JLK , says: December 31, 2018 at 9:54 pm GMT
It's always fun to read articles and history. This article was fun and perhaps thought provoking. But at least some parts of it make no sense to me.
Take for example the "heartland" theory. Yes it probably made sense over a century ago when strategist -always looking in the rear view mirror- judged the situation based on the Roman empire or Napoleons conquest. And their thoughts grounded in traditional territorial wars.
Today with nuclear weapons, fast long range missiles and in very different economic reality, I don't think the "Heartland" is the key to control the world, Eurasia, Europe or indeed anything else than possibly the "Heartland" it self. Control from the Heartland over nuclear France or the U.K?
Annexing small part of land on your own borders whose inhabitants overwhelmingly welcome you with open arms, like Russians did in Crimea, is totally different from conquering unwilling, hostile neighbors. The latter is extremely costly and difficult exercise with just about zero upside but gaping black hole on the downside. Remember Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam? So the former isn't indication of the latter!
I dont't see anything that supports the theory the Russians are playing by the book of the Heartland theory. In current political situation it's outlandish idea. Perhaps the idea is to paint Russia's leaders as lunatics?
Yes the Russians are probably engaged in cyber-war. They seem to have the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg – as reported by European media it's amateur operation costing perhaps few million dollars per year with 80 people from the unemployment list's hammering on laptops working shifts creating and nurturing social media accounts. No experts in politics or advanced computing in sight, no supercomputers, artificial intelligence. Like I said, amateur operation hardly indicating state-sponsored efforts.
Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating.
The press? R.T and few other outlets versus the western MSM who has in recent years acted like a pack of rabid dogs against Russia. Investigative journalism into international affairs is replaced by publishing official statements and "analysis" from "experts". This is war propaganda – nothing less. And the Russians are playing desperate defense most days.
This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum.
Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace.
Happy new year everyone!JLK , says: December 31, 2018 at 11:11 pm GMT
It was a nice history essay, but there isn't much of a logical relationship between Mahan, Haushofer, et al. and the present trade confrontation.
Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further:
Navarro tells Wall Street 'globalist billionaires' to end 'shuttle diplomacy' in U.S.-China trade war
It seems the New York banks would gladly trade the SV engineering jobs for a bigger share of the China banking business, a la the Cleveland and Detroit auto industry jobs of the past.
A possible break with Britain is something even bigger to watch, as their involvement in China is even more finance-related.@Anon ng, which far exceeded direct investments into China by any other country.
If we take a look at the Santander report on Hong Kong FDI, most of it seems to come from the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands (both offshore banking locations, with the funds coming from who knows where) and the UK.
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com
jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT@Z-man
Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli Jews do not see how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all Jews are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a crime'.
The destruction and destabilization of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.
In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial compensation, between Turkey and Greece. To this day tensions exist between the two countries.
Iran is one of the oldest civilizations. Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy. Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah. Iran also of course knows quite well Jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to destroy Iraq. Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?
So that Netanyahu and USA Jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be otherwise ? Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.
There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbors, or with the Palestinians. About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'How we fooled the Palestinians'? Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my recollection is correct. There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.
Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW. What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ? Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?
Dec 20, 2018 | www.unz.com
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website December 19, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMTWith accusations of anti-Semitism flying thick and fast, goyim should bear in mind Gilad Atzmon's definition:
Everything that falls short of fawning praise of Jews is anti-Semitic.
Dec 13, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
ambrit , December 13, 2018 at 5:27 am
Hadrian also built a wall.
Brexit can be considered as the rebuilding of the old nation state wall between England and the Continent. To an extent, this is a repudiation of the Globalist Movement, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Neo-Liberal Experiment. In it's essence, Trumps Wall is a repudiation of the NAFTA Consensus. The American 'deplorables' support it because they see it as a means of defending their livelihoods from those hordes of 'foreign' low wage workers. In both cases, it is a looking inwards.
Arguably, May is one of a generation of politicos in decline. Macron, (perhaps Merkel's hope of having a posterity,) has caved. Merkel has seen the face of her political mortality recently. May has her Pyrrhic victory.
The Clintons cannot even give tickets to their road show away. In all of these examples, the replacements waiting in the wings are, to be charitable about it, underwhelming. Brexit is but the opening act of a grand, worldwide crisis of governance.
How England muddles through this will be an object lesson for us all. We had better take notes, because there will be a great testing later.
makedoanmend , December 13, 2018 at 6:26 am
Impeccable summing up, if I might be so bold.
While the UK has rightly been the focus, I can't help wondering what the deeper feelings are across Europe. It's very hard to gauge how much thought the rest of Europe is giving to Brexit at this stage. The average punter seems very uninterested at this point, while a growing number (from what I'm reading from other sources) just wish they'd get it over with so the rest of Europe could be allowed to get on with its own internal concerns. I suspect the rest of the EU economies most affected must be putting their 'crash-out' plans into over-drive after this week's continuing escapades.
(Re: Sinn Féin. I was wondering if there was the remotest possibility that they would cross their biggest line just to help a Tory government, and a particularly vile Tory government from their standpoint. When speaking to veteran Belfast Republican during negotiations on the GFA (Good Friday Agreement), their viewpoint was that nearly everything could be negotiated but one thing was impossible: entering into a foreign London parliament. Symbolically and practically, it was a step beyond the pale. I also noticed lately that a couple of older Sinn Féin Republicans, who had to be persuaded into the negotiation camp all those years ago, are again contemplating running for local government positions in the North.)
PlutoniumKun , December 13, 2018 at 6:53 am
Everything I've read indicates that the rest of Europe has simply given up on Brexit – they are unwilling to expend any more energy or political capital on it. The leaders have much bigger things on their plates than Brexit, and the general population have lost interest – I'm told it rarely features much in reporting on the major media. I think they'll grant an extension purely to facilitate another couple of months preparation for a crash out, and thats it.
As for Sinn Fein, I get the feeling that after been caught on the hop by Brexit, they now see a crash out as an opportunity. NI looks likely to suffer more than anywhere else if there is a no-deal – there is hardly a business there that won't be devastated. But they are caught between trying to show their soft face in the south and their hardliner face in the North, and I think they are having difficulty deciding how to play it.
Ignacio , December 13, 2018 at 7:25 am
The British circus attracts interest and there is coverage on the motions and so on treated as UK internal politics. May and the ultra-brexiteers get almost all the attention. The only options mentioned are no deal and May's agreement.
makedoanmend , December 13, 2018 at 7:58 am
Thanks for the info. Sounds like well balanced and realistic media coverage to me.
makedoanmend , December 13, 2018 at 7:05 am
I was wondering about deeper EU reactions: here from London based European diplomats.
" European diplomats in London watching the government's Brexit agony have conveyed a mixture of despair, and almost ghoulish fascination, at the state of British politics, with one saying it is as melodramatic as a telenovela, full of subplots, intrigue, tragedy and betrayal
Although privately many diplomats would love Brexit to be reversed, and believe it could mark a turning point against populism, there was also a wariness about the disruption of a second referendum. One ambassador suggested the French realised that European parliamentary election campaign of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, would be damaged by the sight of furious British leave campaigners claiming they had been cheated of their democratic rights by an arrogant elite who refused to listen: "What is happening in France is potentially momentous. The social fabric is under threat, and this anger could spread across the continent," the ambassador said, referring to the gilets jaunes protests ."
Dec 10, 2018 | countercurrents.org
This morning I woke up to two news reports in my mailbox that indicated two things to me:
- Bigotry against Jews can no more nor less be distinguished from bigotry against any other group of people or religion. Sectarianism by any other name is sectarianism.
- The insistence on making bigotry against Jews (in its sense of sectarianism) a separate or unique class of discrimination or hatred altogether, one that is given a special term and that involves controversial and false definitions, is designed to play into the hands of Zionists and neo-Nazis.
Zionist desperation to criminalize anti-Zionist criticism of Israel by legalizing false definitions of anti-Semitism is a measure of how far the term "anti-Semitism" has traveled as a misnomer.
The first news item is from The New York Times – an opinion piece( Opinion | Anti-Zionism Isn't the Same as Anti-Semitism ) by Michelle Goldberg, in which she says,
The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere. Certainly, some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it's entirely possible to oppose Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot. Indeed, it's increasingly absurd to treat the Israeli state as a stand-in for Jews writ large, given the way the current Israeli government has aligned itself with far-right European movements that have anti-Semitic roots.
The second news item comes from the Lobby Watch of the Electronic Intifada, in which Asa Winstanley, an investigative reporter, writes :
A new European Union declaration could make it harder to criticize Israel as a racist state without being dubbed an anti-Semite.
Politicians in Brussels on Thursday rubber-stamped the document .
The declaration asks all EU governments to "endorse the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism employed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance."
The move, passed by EU member states' home affairs ministers, has already been condemned by a number of Israeli and French academics .
The declaration was spearheaded by Austria, whose coalition government includes ministers who are members of a neo-Nazi party .
The term "anti-Semitism" to refer to animus against all Jews is a misnomer. By all accounts, it was coined or popularized by Friedrich Wilhelm Adolph Marr in 1879, a radical writer and politician, described in the title of his first biography as "The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism" and founder of the first "Anti-Semitic League", which he formed in order to agitate against Jewish emancipation in Germany. "Anti-Semitism", as Marr coined it, referred specifically to the anti-Jewish campaigns in central Europe at that time, and not to bigotry or hatred against all Jews, as the term today connotes.
As I write in Anti-Semitism Is Not the Issue; Palestine Is ,
As is well known by now, the building of Palestine in the form of Israel did, in fact, depend, and continues to depend in large part, on the good will of the Jews "outside," many as Norman H. Finkelstein writes in American Jewish History, deriving renewed pride in their religion and their connections to Israel with each Israeli military victory.
The irony/tragedy is that Israeli governments throughout history, including now with the Trump /Bannon merger, work with anti-Semites to promote Jewish immigration to Israel. Zionist collaboration with Nazis is also documented. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism should not be taking center stage either in arguments against Palestinians or in pro-Palestine arguments.
Israel is using a misnomer (the term "anti-Semitism" as animus against all Jews) in order to further its cause among Jews worldwide and among Western governments guilty of past bigotry against Jews in their midst.
Does animus toward Jews because they are Jews exist? Yes. Is this animus special or unique in what FiratHacıahmetoğlu calls "the darker side of western modernity (colonisation, domination, poverty, misery, inequities, injustices, commodification, and dispensability of human life)" or in Western Dark Ages?
Of course, not.
Zionism is a political movement, not "a belief", as expressed in the following definition :
Zionism is the belief that the Jewish nation, the exiles of the Kingdom of Judea that was conquered by Rome in the year 70 CE, have a right to reclaim their homeland.
Jewish suffering, like the suffering of those subjected to bigotry anywhere, is the result of conditions of society and ought to be addressed by fixing society through an increase in political power for disenfranchised groups of people, wherever bigotry exists, thus aiding all the oppressed -- as, in fact, many Jews in the U.S. have done.
In the early days of Zionism, the Jews who believed that Jewish suffering in Europe is impossible to remedy within their societies (through socialism, for example) because of their lack of political rights and the economic structure imposed on Jews at the time and those who opted for a struggle to separate as a tribe through the acquisition of territory, any territory, outside their countries, represent what Zionism really is as a political movement, which is now oppressing a fourth generation of indigenous Palestinians in their own homeland.
The way I see it, it is time to recognize "anti-Semitism" as the misnomer it is, in order for us to be able to envision Palestinian emancipation and, indeed, all human emancipation, as universal and just.
Note: The above content was first published (7 Dec 2018) as my answer on Quora to the question "Is anti-Semitism a special kind of bigotry? What is the history of the term?".
Rima Najjar is a former professor (now retired) at Al-Quds University, Palestine
Dec 09, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Have I Got News For You ✔ @haveigotnews
BREAKING: UK exhausted from endless stream of Brexit bollocks so here's a picture of some puppies.Theresa May told to quit by Cabinet ministers if her Brexit deal falls and she fails to get better terms from EU Telegraph
No-deal Brexit: Disruption at Dover 'could last six months' BBC. I have trouble understanding why six months. The UK's customs IT system won't be ready and there's no reason to think it will be ready even then. I could see things getting less bad due to adaptations but "less bad" is not normal
The Great Brexit Breakdown Wall Street Journal. Some parts I quibble with, but generally good and includes useful historical detail.
British MP suggests threatening Ireland with food shortages over Brexit, Twitter outrage follows RT (kevin W)
It's crunch time for Labour. Empty posturing on Brexit will no longer do Guardian. Shreds the Corbyn op-ed we criticized yesterday.
Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the "deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June 27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to read Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an article published four days after the night Brexit passed, " A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit. Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on, that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old" Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called "Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British press began their work as well.Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
jim jones , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:55 am GMTGovernment found guilty of Contempt of Parliament:Brabantian , says: December 5, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/04/uk-govt-forced-to-publish-full-brexit-legal-documents-after-losing-key-vote/This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit votersniceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the 0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister! I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it. Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
I hope I am wrong.My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 11:40 am GMT
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and, already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union, just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB, same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.@Digital Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT@niceland The expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax evasion.Tyrion 2 , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of imperialist, I suppose.@Simon in London 90% Labour party members supported remain, as did 65% of their voters and 95% of their MPs.Anon  Disclaimer , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMTFor me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.Mike P , says: December 6, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman , Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usuryThis whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as "representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of its power.Wizard of Oz , says: December 6, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those "representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist shills in European politics.I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while. Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the critical decisions on Brexit.Stebbing Heuer , says: Website December 6, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side. Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better informed view.@Digital Samizdat Erm Varoufakis didn't knuckle under. He resigned in protest at Tsipras' knuckling under.anon  Disclaimer , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT@Digital Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized government.Michael Kenny , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to].. return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution? .. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.This sounds like a halfway house between hysterical panic and sour grapes. The author clearly believes that Brexit is going to fail.T.T , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMTEvery working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.Brett Redmayne-Titley , says: Website December 6, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.@Brabantian Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
Che Guava , says: December 6, 2018 at 3:16 pm GMTI agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
Nov 21, 2018 | www.nationalreview.comBy Michael Brendan Dougherty
About Michael Brendan Dougherty
Follow Michael Brendan Dougherty on TwitterA stab at defining a tricky word
What is nationalism? The word is suddenly and surprisingly important when talking about the times we live in. But we seem to be working without a shared definition.
"You know what I am? I'm a nationalist," Donald Trump said in an October rally in Houston.
French president Emmanuel Macron slapped back at a commemoration ceremony for World War I in France. "Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," he said. "By saying 'our interests first, who cares about the others,' we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."
Macron is not the first to try to make a hard, fast, and rhetorically pungent distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Orwell attempted to do the same in a famous essay . He wrote that patriotism is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally."
On the other hand, "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
In the end, Orwell gives a rather unsatisfying account in which all the mental and moral vices of self-interest and self-regard are transmuted and supercharged by their absorption into a nationalistic "we." Nationalists in his account hold their nations supreme, thereby encouraging themselves to traduce any other people or nation. For Orwell, the patriot prefers this to that . The nationalist privileges us over them . For us, everything, to others nothing.
In his recent book, The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony makes a different contrast. His work is not primarily concerned with the moral status or self-deception of individuals, but with the organization of geopolitics. For him the contrast is between nationalism and imperialism. For Hazony, it is the nationalist who respects spontaneous order and pluralism. Imperialists run roughshod over these, trampling local life for the benefit of the imperial center.
A border will rein in the ambition of the nationalist, whereas the imperial character rebels against limits. A century ago, in what he called the days of "clashing and crashing Empires," the Irish nationalist Eoin MacNeil felt similarly. For him, the development of a nation -- any nation -- had in it "the actuality or the potentiality of some great gift to the common good of mankind."
It's difficult to find a consistent definition of nationalism from its critics, meanwhile. Sometimes nationalism is dismissed as the love of dirt, or mysticism about language. Other times it's the love of DNA.
In the critics' defense, though, the way nationalism has expressed itself in different nations and different times can be maddeningly diverse. Orwell is tempted to believe the nationalist thinks his nation is best in all things, but much of nationalist rhetoric throughout Europe is a rhetoric of envy or arousal. Nationalists sometimes boast about their nations, but in many circumstances they express despair about their countries; they want to excite their people to achieve more, to take themselves as seriously as some rival national actor takes itself.
I'd like to propose a different way of thinking about the question. When we use the vocabulary of political philosophies, we recognize that we are talking about things that differ along more than one axis. Take Communism, liberalism, and conservatism: The first is a theory of history and power. The second is a political framework built upon rights. The final disclaims the word "ideology" and has been traditionally defined as a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance.
I would like to sidestep Hazony's championing of nationalism as a system for organizing political order globally, a theory that my colleague Jonah Goldberg is tempted to call "nationism."
My proposal is that nationalism as a political phenomenon is not a philosophy or science, though it may take either of those in hand. It isn't an account of history. Instead, nationalism is an eruptive feature of politics. It grows out of the normal sentiments of national loyalty, like a pustule or a fever. It could even be said that nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that nationalism recruits the patriotic sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger.
In normal or propitious circumstances, national loyalty is the peaceful form of life that exists among people who share a defined territory and endeavor to live under the laws of that territory together. National loyalty attaches us to a place, and to the people who share in its life. Destroying national loyalty would almost certainly bring about the return of loyalties based on creed and blood.
One of the outstanding features of nationalist political movements, the thing that almost always strikes observers about them, is their irritated or aroused character. And it is precisely this that strikes non-nationalists as signaling danger. Republican democracies should be characterized by deliberation. Conservatives distrust swells of passion. Liberals want an order of voluntary rights. But nationalist movements are teeming with powerful emotions: betrayal, anger, aggression.
Therefore, I contend, like a fever, nationalism can be curative or fatal. And, like fevers, it can come and go depending on the nation's internal health or the external circumstances a nation finds itself in. Foreign aggression and the onset of war will reliably generate nationalist moods and responses. But cultural change can do it too. Maybe a national language falls into sharp and sudden decline under pressure from a more powerful lingua franca. Even something as simple or common as rapid urbanization can be felt to agitate upon a people's loyalties, and may generate a cultural response for preserving certain rural traditions and folkways. And of course, sometimes nationalism is excited by the possibility of some new possession coming into view, the opportunity to recover or acquire territory or humiliate a historic rival. The variety of irritants explains the variety of nationalisms.
You tend to find a lot of nationalism where there are persistent or large irritants to the normally peaceful sense of national loyalty. Think of western Ukraine, where the local language and political prerogatives have endured the powerful irritant of Moscow's power and influence in its region, and even in its territory. You find a great deal of nationalism in Northern Ireland, where a lineage of religious differences signals dueling loyalties to the United Kingdom and to Ireland.
Until recently you didn't find a lot of political nationalism in the United States, because it is a prosperous nation with unparalleled independence of action. But we are familiar with bursts of nationalism nonetheless -- for example, at times when European powers threatened the U.S. in the early days of the Republic, during the Civil War and its aftermath, and especially during World War I, which coincided with the tail end of a great wave of migration into the country.
If nationalist political movements are national loyalties in this aroused state, then we must judge them on a case-by-case basis. When non-nationalists notice the irritated and irritable character of nationalism, often the very next thing they say is, "Well, they have a point." You would judge a nationalist movement the way you would judge any man or group of men in an agitated state. Do you have a right to be angry about this matter? What do you intend to do about it? How do you intend to do it?
We all do this almost instinctively. We understand that there are massive differences among nationalist projects. In order to assert his young nation's place on the world stage, John Quincy Adams sought to found a national university. We may judge that one way, whereas we judge Andrew Jackson's Indian-removal policy very differently. In Europe, we might cheer on the ambition of the Irish Parliamentary party to establish a home-rule parliament in Dublin. That was a nationalist project, but so was the German policy of seeking lebensraum through the racial annihilation of the Jews and the enslavement of Poland, which we judge as perhaps the most wicked cause in human history. We might cheer the reestablishment of a Polish nation after World War I, but deplore some of the expansionist wars it immediately embarked upon.
Nationalist politics tends to be opportunist; it takes other political ideas, philosophies, and forms of mobilization in hand and discards them. Nationalists throughout the 20th century adopted Communism or capitalism to acquire the patronage or weapons to throw off imperial rule, or stick it to a neighbor, for example.
The reemergence of nationalist politics in America and abroad requires us to ask those simple questions. What is bothering them? Do they have a point? What do they want to do about it? Would it be just? In broad strokes I intend to take those questions up.
Kontraindicated 2 days agoJean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago
There is much discussion below as to the meaning of the term "nationalism" below. In the minds of many, it seems to be a relatively benign term.
However, even recently we have seen extremely violent episodes break out that appear to be associated with some sort of flavour of "nationalism", however it's defined.
In the former Yugoslavia, Tito tried to create a new "nation" that would have a common identity by breaking up the "nations" that had previously existed on the same territory. This involved the forced relocation of various groups of Serbs and Croats (and, to a lesser extent, Bosnians) who would now all live together in peace and harmony. However, when the political structures fell, the people fell back into their old groups and immediately began fighting each other. The end result was an incredibly bloody and vicious civil war and the ultimate re-establishment of Nations/Countries that mapped more closely to the ethnic/cultural/race divisions that the people involved in the conflict were concerned with. Ultimately, they (as individuals) decided which team they wanted to belong to and, as long as the "nation" agreed, they became part of that "nation".
Similar scenarios have played out across Africa and the Middle East (which was artificially set up for a century's worth of conflict by Europeans in 1919).
All of which is mildly interesting, but it's not really related to the reason that this topic is coming up in NRO. The reason that we are discussing this is that Macron spent a considerable amount of time during the Armistice Ceremony decrying "Nationalism" (which, if we treat the term in the Yugoslavian context, likely did play a significant role in two World Wars) and Fox and Friends were then able to teach Donald Trump a new word - after which he declared himself a "Nationalist".
So rather than beating ourselves up over semantics, would it not be better instead to debate two questions?:
- Does "Nationalism" represent a growing force within enough countries that it represents a significant threat to the current world order?
- Does whatever Donald Trump thinks "Nationalism" means pose a threat to America's current place in the world and is it driving the US away from its leadership role? (will "America First" lead to "America Isolated and Alone?")Leroy 2 days ago
First, your last question is already answered, in the WTO, the EU, China, Canada, Mexico have raised a complaint against the falsified use of "national security" by Trump to justify tariffs. If the USA decided then to leave the WTO, because Trump's personal honor would be stained, (without forgetting that the US Congress should have already protested that these tariffs were illegal in the first place) this will be another occasion to show that it is indeed "America Isolated and Alone"... Trump could have allied himself with the EU, Canada, etc. against some of the unfair practices of China, instead he got two of the biggest trading block in the world (including its two territorial neighbors) to ally themselves against the USA.
What a way of winning Donnie! ;-)
Then, let's go back to the question of the meaning of Nationalism.
There are two aspects:
- What is the real meaning of nationalism compared to patriotism, when we remove all the fake ideological recent additions to these terms? (and I have answered at length on this in my other comments) And this meaning is not necessarily nefarious. It becomes a problem when one claims that each Nation must have one "sovereign" State (in the sense of country), and there should be only one such Nation per country.
- What is the meaning which is actually meant by Trump? And it is clear that he means it the way that it was whispered to him, which is "One Nation, One and only One State; One State, One and only One Nation"...
It is no longer "e pluribus unum", but "e uno unum" (one from one), which is slightly less ambitious and certainly less of a reason to get up in the morning and do something productive (but then there is a lot of opportunity for "Executive Time" and playing golf)... ;-)TitoPerdue 2 days ago
"Out of many, one." ONE. Get it through your head. ONE. If you are MANY, you ARE Yugoslavia. And that doesn't end well.Gaurus 3 days ago
I try to imagine my parents being informed that they must now accustom themselves to white people being turned into a minority. Would have been stunned, my folks, who first arrived in 1771.
My folks: "But what did we do wrong!"
Me: "You've been too successful and must now be punished."
My folks: "What's wrong with being successful!"
Me: "It's racist. Ask Jonah Goldberg. You know how much the Jews despise ethnocentrism."Plymouth mtng, PA 3 days ago
This is a useful take on the subject. There is a big Tower of Babel problem with this word as it seems to mean different things to different people, and different nations also define it differently.
This language barrier is why Macron's criticism of the President should be taken with a grain of salt. The left's myopic/robotic attempts to unilaterally define this word on their terms is reprehensible, just like so many of their other attempts at PC authoritarianism aka thought control which is pushed by the national media.
What the vast majority of people apparently fail to realize is that the United states is an empire which by definition is a group of states or countries containing diverse ethnic and cultural identities.
You must at some point come to ask yourself, "what keeps these diverse groups contained in the U.S. from fracturing, dividing, and falling apart?" The answer is nationalism/national identity. It is the keystone or glue that binds these diverse ethnic and cultural groups together. Anyone or anything that tugs or tears at nationalism therefore is altogether a bad thing for the country and will sow division and strife that was not previously there. Ultimately civil war could result if those seeking to divide the country for political gain go too far and the left ignorantly seems all-in on doing this.
Applying recent trends in politics using this as a backdrop, one can see how pro-globalists wouldn't care to attack nationalism as they are by definition against the very concept of a nation-state and want top bring back good old feudalism, but this time on a global scale. For comparison Russia is another example of an empire that is aware It needs to fuel nationalist sentiment to hold itself together. The EU is an emerging empire that is conflicted with what this means. The break-up of the Soviet Union can be blamed in part for failing to establish a strong national identity.Leroy 3 days ago
Well said! This truth is exemplified by the evidentiary and documented history that the Founding Fathers and Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant and the whole of 19th century America used the language of Liberty and Patriot to define the American Republic.Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
I just learned something new. I thought that ethnicity was the same as race. It isn't. Ethnicity: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." By that definition, we're all in an ethnic group, and we can belong to smaller ethnic groups as well.
If Americans don't become nationalists, understand that we share common interests and goals, it won't matter how much we love our country, because it will be unrecognizable.Leroy 3 days ago
I happen to think that "race" does not exist, but we know that in the USA when people say "ethnic" they mean "race"... ;-)
I remember 30 years ago, at the hairdresser in London, picking up a copy of the tabloid "The Sun", and reading a sentence where "ethnic" was used to mean "foreigner with a darker complexion"... (something like "the three men were ethnic") ;-)
Once more "ethnic" means "national", nothing more nothing less: "ethnos" is the Greek translation of "natio". These are words which have been used for a few thousand years, and we have to understand what they really meant and what they really mean now, and to remove from them the "ideological" additions.
The definition which you give shows such ideological addition, by adding "cultural" and "tradition". By definition a "nation", as the same traditions and therefore the same "culture": they are just redundant in this definition.
An ethnic group is a nation. So yes, you are in an ethnic group, and you can "define" smaller and smaller ethnic groups within the bigger one (the "tribes"). So in Gaul, there were many different "nations", who were Gauls, but had a great diversity between them (just read a few pages of Cæsar).
But at some point when there are many ethnic groups within you country (and this is how a country like France was made by the addition of regions with varying ethnic backgrounds and the migration/invasion of many other ethnic groups), at some point the only unity is in the country, the "patria", this is there that you find the common interests and goals.
So you see in France the difference going from Nation to the Country, because in the early middle ages the king was called "King of the French" Rex Francorum, (there were many other nations recognized on the French territory) and in the later part of the Middle Ages, he was called "King of France", Rex Franciae.
But because the word "nation" is important, and people would not let it go, there has been a tendency to use it to mean "country", as when we speak of the National Anthem, but this is by a shifting of its original sense.
When we want to oppose nationalism and patriotism, we need to go back to the original technical meaning, not invent a new one.
PS: the reason why "ethnic" and "race" are not the same thing, and we saw it with "Pocahontas" controversy (I mentioned it then), it is because a nation can "adopt" somebody who was not genetically related to them. They shall still be fully part of the nation... but their genetic material shall be different.Hub312 3 days ago ( Edited )
I know you enjoy history, but the meaning of words can shift. I'll go with the meaning of the word Nation that the founders meant when they founded this nation. Nations are sovereign, make laws and control territory. A group of people, who share a culture, but who do not control territory is not a nation.Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Whoever wants a clear-headed understanding of nationalism, I suggest you read the world's foremost scholar on nationalism, Liah Greenfeld's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity" and Pierre Manent's concise but rich "Democracy Without Nations?".
Nationalism is really just another word for modernity and democracy. . It arose in England at the end of the 17th and the 18th centuries as the liberal answer to the question: if the people are sovereign, who are "the people" that we are now calling the nation? Answer: those who live within the borders controlled by the sovereign. The nation state is our home and our protection and we're all in it together regardless of language, culture, etc. This was the essentially liberal idea that was adopted and adapted by the French. This was the form adopted by Americans too. Greenfeld describes it as "civic nationalism" to differentiate it from the ethnic, anti-liberal "nationalism" later adopted by Russia and Germany.
It is the Russians, followed by the Germans and other central Europeans who followed their lead that gave nationalism a bad name. Identifying "the people" as a linguistic-cultural entity with or without borders set the stage for the bloody conflicts that were fought over borders for these groups, and the discrimination and ethnic cleansing for those who didn't belong to the dominant linguistic-cultural group, to say nothing of what needed to be done about members of the dominant group who lived outside its borders.
Empires and nations based on racial and ethnic identity have bloody borders, since it is impossible to draw any border anywhere in the world that includes all members of the dominant group and excludes or oppresses all members of other groups.
Are they both called nationalisms? Yes. But they couldn't be farther apart.Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
the word that is missing in your comment is "country". "if the people are sovereign, who are "the people" that we are now calling the nation?... etc."
I am interested to see in which English author of the end of the 17th century you find the expression of "sovereign people" or the "people are sovereign". Do you have some primary sources? I do not find it in Locke, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.
And in the UK, in the 18th and 19th century, and still now, it is clear that English, Welsh, Irish and Scots are different nations in the same "country"... Today, in Rugby the 6 nations championship takes place actually between four countries.
In the Middle Ages it is clear that the "supreme power" "summa potestas" comes God, and after this it is a question of open debate whether it is invested directly in the King, or through the people who then may elect a king, or decide on a Republic.
And I find in the Renaissance of the 16th and early 17th century, many proponents of a summa potestas that belongs to the people, which gives incidentally rise to the possibility of removing from power bad kings, but they happen to be Spanish and Catholics: Francisco Suarez, Juan de Mariana and Roberto Bellarmino... worse, they are all Jesuits... ;-), and they claim that the supreme power comes from the consent of the governed, and they were all dead by 1630... So that's it when it comes to the notion of people's sovereignty "arising" in England in the late 17th century... It was up and awake already.
I cannot find "souveraineté" as a word (which is different from having a "sovereign"), before Jean Bodin (16th century) (but you perhaps have better sources than mine), then I can direct you to many discussions about the nature and origin of "souveraineté" in French in the 16th and 17th century.
Rousseau (mid-18th century) is famous for ascribing sovereignty to the people, but he was not English (although he was Protestant), nor French, but he is also the inspiration for the "dictatorship of the people", and the Terror.
Rousseau is part of the Social Contract school, to which is usually adjoined his predecessors Hobbes and Locke, but there is no doubt that Hobbes is a partisan of absolute monarchy, and again I fail to see in Locke a direct notion of people's sovereignty: when he speaks of civil sovereigns he speaks of the "magistrates" who rule. But I am certain that you shall direct me to the proper place in Locke, which currently escapes me.
The thing is that the "consent of the people" or even the "sovereignty of the people", or the "social contract" does not mean that they are individually free afterwards... they may actually live under an absolute monarchy and still have "consented" to it, or under a dictatorship of the people (socialist), or a national dictatorship, or a mixture of both... ;-)Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Of course, as I read again what I wrote, I made the most silly of blunders: Bellarmino was Italian, not Spanish... this invalidates all that I have ever written.. ;-)Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago
Also, in the late 16th century during what is now called the Wars of Religions (but which they called Civil Wars) in continental Europe, people moved from Monarchists to Republicans and back, depending of whether they were Catholics or Protestants, but mostly depending of the position of strength in which they were at the time... There is a very interesting literature regarding the nature and origin of the supreme power, and whether the people must have absolute obedience to the the sovereign civil power (whatever shape it has). Of course none of this has to do with 17th century England, except that the same questions where asked and answered their own way in the English Civil War (which was a religious war), when the Round-Heads decided to chop that of their King, whose shape they did not like. ;-)
Bellarmino wrote against James I when he tried to sustain is absolute divine right to rule.
All of this to say that these questions were raised long before the Glorious Revolution. ;-)Hub312 4 hours ago ( Edited )
well, why would I read a secondary source book, if it does not know the primary sources which I know?
If this book describes nothing more than what you described (i.e. England, end of the 17th century, etc.), which is refuted by the sources that I know, why would I waste time reading it? it could not edify me, if it does not add to what I know.Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
...and you would love the Manent book, written from a very European liberal perspective, which is brief and very concise.Leroy 3 days ago
Dear Michael Brendan Dougherty,
I have a revolutionary proposal: instead of investing words with supposed meanings in order to be able to say that we approve of them or not (which in English is called begging the question), why don't we simply use the etymological meaning of the word? ;-)
It's easy, "national" means precisely the same thing as "ethnic": one is Latin, the other is Greek. You know what ethnicity is a euphemism for in the US: "race". A "nation" does not need to have borders to be a nation, the "barbarian nations" of late Antiquity early Middle Ages were roving nations. This is why also initially German nationalism i the 19th and early 20th century was expansive: it meant to "unify" the German nation in one country. This is why Irish, Scottish or Welsh nationalism is divisive and restrictive, it is meant to separate the English (seen as invaders) from the local version of a Celtic nation.
The "Patria" is the Land of the fathers: this is the "country", the "land".
The one is "Blood", the other is "Soil", you see that each can be assigned bad meaning or good meaning, if one wants to.
Behind this you have the age old conflicts between Cain and Abel, between the roving pastor, and the settled farmer.
Both Nation and Patria can be a limit within which to stay, or a limit to expand: so one can be an "imperialist" or not, whether one is a patriot or a nationalist. Because even a patriot, may require more land, to ensure the safety of the one that he has, his own version of "lebensraum".
These two notions are also linked to the "jus sanguinis" (right of blood) and the "jus soli" (right of soil/land) question regarding citizenship.
In countries which have official separate notions of citizenship and nationality (in the former USSR for instance), citizenship is clearly ascribed to the country, and nationality is clearly ascribed to ethnicity: so one can be a Russian national, citizen of Kazakhstan.
It is the notion of the Nation-State (which is comparatively recent), which tends to make believe that for each identifiable "Nation" there must be one identifiable "Country" (a sovereign state). It is the geographical difficulty if not impossibility of this which lead to the political upheavals in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was trying to merge Nationalism and Patriotism that created the problems.
In some cases when supposed "nations" wanted to be unified within one country, there was the notion of "Pan-somethingism", Pan-Germanism, Pan-Slavism, etc., and/or Nations wanted to become independent: so you had the fights for the unification of Italy, Germany, the independence of Poland, Greece, etc., within the 19th century. And then there were all these places were the population was too mixed to make any such separation easy: the Balkans, the remnants of the Turkish Empire (a perfect example together with the Persian Empire (for those who read Xenophon), why "Imperialism" does not mean "centralization"), remnants of "German" populations in "Slavic" countries, etc. You know what followed.
So both nationalism and patriotism can have a good or a bad meaning, depending of how one intends to use them.
For instance the notion of a "Europe of Nations" is what helped secure the Good Friday Agreement, because another way of saying it is a "Europe of Regions", where Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Basques, Bretons (of little Brittany), etc., have a possibility of recognition, without necessarily breaking up "countries".
So you are right there is much more than one axis of meaning, and it is important that one opposes the right terms, and this is the responsibility of what used to be called the "publicists", those who speak of the Res Publica, what we now call "pundits": but in the USA none are more adept at using the wrong formulations than the "modern conservative" pundits. Why? well, "modern conservative" says it all... because you are partly right conservatism is about "a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance", and "modern conservatism" is therefore an oxymoron. ;-)
And this is why "Modern Conservatism" became such an easy prey for the Alt-Right Anarchists: because they are not grounded in an actual "tradition", but like all the "progressives" (which they are), they have to reinvent for themselves a new beginning... in the 1950s, they said, now that there is National Review, we shall become "real" conservatives, "modern conservatives", before us, they were not really conservatives... ;-)
But you cannot be a real conservative if you have to identify a date for the birth of your movement.
"Modern Conservatives" have a vested interest in muddying the debate, so that it does not become clear that "conservatism" is not linked to specific political or economical models, and more importantly it is not true that the Founding Fathers were all absolutist libertarian free traders... ;-)
So Conservatism is not the opposite of Liberalism, it is the opposite of Progressivism. Imperialism is indeed about expansion of power, but it is not necessarily about "centralization", as many empires not only have left the "local life" untouched, but this "local life" disappeared when a supposedly more "liberal" power took over...
Therefore I do beg American publicists, especially those of the conservative variety writing in NRO, stop begging the question when you falsely "define" terms, so that they align with what you deem to be good or bad; be instead a real conservative, go back to the etymology and the actual meaning of the words, see how they were used initially, not only in the last 50 or even 100 years... because then you are using "progressive" definitions, and you keep repeating that "progressives" always change the meaning of the words to suit their purpose... You are right on that one. ;-)Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Conservatism "has been traditionally defined as a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance"?
That can't be true. We all know that conservatism now means free trade, where American workers are replaced by Chinese slave labor. We know that conservatism means an insatiable desire for foreign migrants, adding millions of campesino's to our economy every year. Most of all, we know that conservatism stands for foreign imperialist wars and globalist profits.
What, exactly, are our children inheriting? Press 2 for Spanish.TitoPerdue 2 days ago
I agree with you that US Conservatives are Progressives by another name. see my main comment here. ;-)Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago
Indeed. And let us not forget neocons.hawkesappraisal 3 days ago
given that the Founding Fathers were already progressives, who for you committed the original sin of believing that "all men are created equal", why do you still live in that den of iniquity that is the USA?
You should be out there carving an empire for yourself, showing your supremacy and spreading the seeds of your "culture" over uncharted territories and untamed tribes... ;-)
I hear that there are still some fairly inaccessible places in Papua-New-Guinea... ;-)
Perfect place to show your supremacy, or end up in the cooking pot. For once your philosophy of life would become true: eat or be eaten! ;-)freedom1 3 days ago ( Edited )
I agree. "Nationalism" is a charged but nebulous word, but it describes something that is clearly important in spite of the obscurity of its meaning. So the struggle to come up with coherent definitions is worthwhile. The current Nationalism is probably best defined by, Progressives saying "America sucks!" and the Right responding, "No it doesn't! America is Awesome!"
Thoughtful piece. I think the obvious irritant lending support to Nationalist sentiments is the non benign aspects of Globalism.
Nov 26, 2018 | www.unz.com
West Bank Settler and American Patriot
Tyrion 2 , says: November 22, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMTanon  Disclaimer , says: November 22, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
November 22, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT 300 Words @neutral
Marxism – (((Marx)))
Marxism is a brilliant sui generis philosophy of history. The attending political position was a heartfelt reaction to the immiseration of the working classes of Europe.
There were many similar ideologies to Marxism in political viewpoint, but Marxism is outstandingly intellectually interesting.
Marx is not differentiated from other (Gentile) socialists by his politics but by his genius. I doubt his part Jewishness had much to do with that.
Libertarianism/Free Market fundamentalists – (((Alisa Rosenbaum, aka Ayn Rand))) , (((Mises)))
Jews have made up a huge proportion of decent economists from all economic perspectives.
Meanwhile, Ayn Rand was an highly eccentric writer of romantic fiction that lucidly captured the snivelling, resentment fueled scumbags who make up the denizens of the swamp.
Pychoanalysis – (((Freud)
Freud's psychoanalysis might be flawed but his work constitutes a truly great body of literature and the invention of a new and important subject. He is one of the greatest thinkers of all time.
USSR – (((Lenin))), (((Trotsky)
Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered while in ignominious exile.
SJW/open society/antifa movements – (((Soros))) and other forture 400 (((billionaires)))
I'm not sure how you think antifa and billionaires are best buddies but Jews are obviously a minority among billionaires.
Soros is deranged. There are plenty of bad people in every group. There are more maniac progressive types among Jews. The explanations are mundane.
Big tech censorship – (((ADL))), (((SPLC))), (((Zuckerberg))), (((Brin)))
Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship. Indeed, America remains one of human history's least censored societies. That doesn't make it good but you need get some perspective before you go all crazy.
Hollywood and other pop culture entertainment – easily all senior positions at the very least 50% jewish
Nonsense. And a lot of that stuff is pretty good.
The jew really is to blame, which is also why they are so hell bent on censoring and jailing people for stating these blatant truths.
Is this self-satire?@neutralanon  Disclaimer , says: November 22, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT
Hollywood and other pop culture entertainment – easily all senior positions at the very least 50% jewish.
might even be closer to 75% if you look at those accused of sexual improprieties in the last year or so and if that is an accurate sample@Tyrion 2Durruti , says: November 22, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered while in ignominious exile.
apparently Lenin was part jewish and had disdain for white people, ethnic Russians
Trotsky was the racist he accused others of being – he wanted to fill Russia with what he called "white n1ggers" presumably to ruled by jews like himself – what right a 5% has to rule the rest of the country? It would be like Chinese ruling the U.S.
Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship.
really? (((Facebook))), (((Google))), and (((SPLC))) and (((ADL))) are the so called "safety advisors" so no leftist or jew should ever have to stumble upon the truth on those sites
also, why do you thnk BitChute lost access to PayPal and Stripe? why do think Paul Nehlen suddenly had trouble with his upstream suppliers for the business he manages? its because jews behind the scenes collude against and punish any competitiors or anyone speaking out about jews – this is what they do
Indeed, America remains one of human history's least censored societies.
no thanks to the jews, who have pulled this "hate speech" crap already in Canada, UK, Australia, and Europe. They are the reason those countries don't have Free Speech and they're coming for Free Speech here in the U.S. too – because (((their))) feelings are more important than your rightsOnce more:follyofwar , says: November 22, 2018 at 6:10 pm GMT
I am not an anti-Semite. I like Arabs.
The overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semites (peoples from the Middle East). Most Jews' points of origin are in Europe.
My family (mother's side) German Jews – not a Semite in the bunch. Mostly blond haired & blue eyes.
There is real resistance to those, who attempt to clarify this vital point. Ron Unz, this is your website, and these are some of your topics. Why fear to tread? Why fear the truth? You've come so far. Come all the way into the light.
Most Jews come from – – – Read Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe" as a start for your education and a cure for your being brainwashed.
Have received some threatening emails, and despite all the political views this Anarchist has, the threats have ALL been in response to my analysis of just who are, and are not Semites. Unz, and Commentators, I need no help here. I fear not, and cannot live forever.
Orwell's 1984 , explains in detail the use of false language and false History as the KEY tools in repressing Humanity, and Humanity's Liberty.
The misidentification of just who Semites are is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Zionist Land Thieves and their American, British, & French puppets. The Jewish claim to Semitism goes in tandem with their insistence on their right to exterminate Palestinians and occupy their land, and later, the Zionist Oligarchs will continue to occupy all the Middle East "eretz Israel," and concurrently, they will occupy and control (with the weapons of financial/banking and physical terror), the peoples of this planet.
It is no wonder Gilad Atzmon has it all wrong. Look for no help here.
Jews have not been the only recipients of the Brutality that humans often inflict on one another. And Jews have not been specially singled out, over Serbians, Russians, Chinese, Armenians, Native Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, Vietnamese, Indonesians (1965), Yemenis, Libyans, Afghanis, Africans (slavery and neo colonizing of their nations), and dozens more.
Jews belong (yes, they, with all the rest of Earth's people, belong). Jews belong in America, and Europe, where they may reside in happiness and freedom with all the other peoples, and, if they wish, they may visit their newly Freed and Happy Palestinian friends, (and host them in their European and American homes) – as well.
We American Patriots , we will host all, in our Restored American Republic.
And America's finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul , will become our First Constitutional President – since John F. Kennedy.
The Living Dream, and do not Fear.
Durruti for the Anarchist CollectiveWest Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz Review@wayfarer The USA is full of Jewish billionaires. Why on earth does Israel need any blood money from the hard-pressed taxpayers when they could supply their home away from home with all the extra money it needs, if indeed it needs any at all? If you are wondering about one of the main causes of US anti-Semitism, look no further than the billions our AIPAC-controlled traitorous Congress gives to that apartheid state every year.mark green , says: November 22, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT
West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz ReviewWhat a pleasure to find Gilad Atzmon here at UNZ. And as usual, Mr. Atzmon delivers fresh insights and bold perspectives.
I am grateful that Gilad is examining as well as talking to hyper-Zionists living in Pennsylvania. This is revealing. I appreciate Yonatan Stern's willingness to address Atzmon's questions.
I was similarly impressed–unexpectedly so–when I met the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, who I briefly interviewed for a televised TV debate I produced ('Why Terrorism?') in 1986. Former US Congressman, Pete McCloskey (R-CA), took the opposing side in this exchange concerning the future of Palestine/Israel as well as US policies there. In my opinion, Kahane won the debate (though not on its merits).
Rabbi Kahane was an unabashed separatist (like most devout Jews) and he famously declared (somewhat prematurely) that Israel's native gentiles ('Palestinians') had no future in a Jewish State.
Kahane believed that all these resentful, recalcitrant Arabs should be kicked out of Israel. He was unabashedly pro-separation. From a Zionist point of view, Kahane offered a violent though practical long-term solution. Multiculturalism is inherently problematic and destabilizing. It is also incompatible with Jewish nationalism. But Kahane made Jewish liberals blush. As a result, he was declared a 'racist' by establishment Jews; even though Judaism is, at its core, race-driven.
Please keep in mind that during this era (Carter through Clinton) the endless Mideast 'peace process' was still underway with all the hype, fanfare, and false hopes.
The 'peace process' ended up being a road to nowhere–full of highfalutin awards, accords, meetings, 'confidence-building measures' and an endless array of Jewish advisors, pro-Israel committees, donors and 'experts'. Kahane knew that it was doomed from the start.
Nevertheless, Jews from nearly every 'mainstream' political faction world-wide derided Kahane's straightforward and 'racist' solutions, even though his prophetic advice now mirrors today's Israeli policies. Meir Kahane was simply ahead of his time. He was also far too candid for his liberal cousins to own up to.
A few years after Kahane's televised debate with McCloskey, he was assassinated in NYC.
In any event, it is undeniable that blood/ancestry is at the heart of Judaism. The Law of Return tells us so. Religiosity on the other hand has become somewhat incidental to Jewishness. A committed, ethnic Jew (but an atheistic one) such as Allen Dershowitz, for instance, is as 'Jewish' as any orthodox rabbi. Identity and ancestry is what matters.
Thus I appreciate Stern's criticism of his Jewish cousins who have saddled America with top-down 'liberalism', a movement that's functioned as a court-ordered Trojan Horse inside America.
Like his Jewish cousins however, Stern's still a bit of a fraud–since he relies on double-standards, special privileges, and ancestral grievances to justify his unique collection of rights as a land-grabbing Zionist.
Stern hypocritically derides non-violent whites in Charlottesville who want the same rights for themselves in America as Jews get in Israel: to preserve their culture, traditions, racial lineage, and majority status. These are core Zionist values. But Stern would deny them to any and all American whites.
Stern is also disinclined to express any gratitude to his duplicitous, liberal cousins for their decades-long, pro-Jewish activism. Yet Stern is beneficiary of their subterfuge. Jewish activism helps explain why Jews have risen in America while others–such as the white, working-class men in Charlottesville–have fallen.
US Liberalism (with plenty of help from Zionist Jews) coercively integrated America racially (but not in Israel), opened our borders to all (but not in Israel) and erected a towering wall between 'church and state' (but not in Israel).
These tricks have been good for the Jews, which includes Stern. He can now wear his yarmulke proudly and not get laughed at–or punched (since its a 'hate crime' today).
Liberal and 'secular' Jews also helped orchestrate Washington's de facto marriage to the State of Israel. This has also empowered Stern. And to the delight of most Jews (both left and right) the US has been largely de-Christianized over the past sixty years. This is more smart work by Jewish jurists, lawyers, and academics–many with close ties to the 'liberal' ACLU.
As a beneficiary of all this, Stern should thank his liberal cousins for this political black magic. Yet he pretends to object.
Stern is at least correct when he acknowledges that 'progressive' Jews have damaged the West and that they are still doing so.
Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com
geokat62 , says: November 21, 2018 at 3:27 am GMT@jilles dykstra
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in 2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly. We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans, Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S. Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will go to Israel?
jilles dykstra , says: November 21, 2018 at 10:49 am GMT@geokat62
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know. What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'. That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see this. About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing too. NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
Nov 19, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
US-Funded Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists November 17, 2018 • 43 Comments
Short-sighted U.S. foreign policy that backs jihadists in the Middle East and neo-Nazis in Ukraine is once again blowing back on the United States, as Max Blumenthal explains.
FBI: Azov Battalion Trained Rise Above Movement
Last month, an unsealed FBI indictment of four American white supremacists from the Rise Above Movement (RAM) declared that the defendants had trained with Ukraine's Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia officially incorporated into the country's national guard. The training took place after the white supremacist gang participated in violent riots in Huntington Beach and Berkeley, California and Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017.
The indictment stated that the Azov Battalion "is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States-based white supremacy organizations."
After a wave of racist violence across America that culminated in the massacre of twelve Jewish worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue, the revelation that violent white supremacists have been traveling abroad for training and ideological indoctrination with a well-armed neo-Nazi militia should cause extreme alarm.
Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly -- chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home. But U.S. law enforcement has done nothing so far to restrict the flow of right-wing American extremists to Azov's bases.
There is one likely explanation for the U.S. government's hands-off approach to Azov recruitment: the extremist militia is fighting pro-Russian separatists as a front-line proxy of Washington. In fact, the United States has directly armed the Azov Battalion, forking over anti-tank rocket launchers and even sending a team of Army officers to meet in the field with Azov commanders in 2017.
Though Congress passed legislation this year forbidding military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology, the Trump administration's authorization of $200 million in offensive weaponry and aid to the Ukrainian military makes it likely new stores of weapons will wind up the extremist regiment's hands. When queried by reporters about evidence of American military training of Azov personnel, multiple U.S. army spokespersons admitted there was no mechanism in place to prevent that from happening.
... ... ...
Hide Behind , November 18, 2018 at 6:55 pm
Strange people that live in US, those that live under belife of free speech and expression, and yet there are literally thousands of examples where those of opposing view points that try and present them in public are met with disruptive behaviors, banning from presentations of opposing ideology from speaking at Colleges and University campus, and removal and witholding of tenure to those who question edicts of correct speech and lets admit it anything that questions support of Israel the State.
And condoling of violent behavior by groups in US , crosses religious, political Partys, Anarchist, and now a liber storm trooper style ANTIFA that is beginning to better equip themselve tha. just pipes, knives, and clubs into having numbers armed with the Leftist hate most guns.
We have ultra right Trump supportive Militia that actively said they would revolt if Trump was defeated and now if he is impeached. The largest and most virulent part of the southern state militia are of Christian Zionist, and some militias signature patches have Star of David upon them and the cross
... ... ...
frank mintz , November 18, 2018 at 5:28 pm
You think that the October massacre marks a culmination? That is naive: it is undoubtedly not an end point and part of a crescendo building for decades. Meanwhile, the professional Right keeps denouncing the Democrats for anti-Semitism, which is frequently simply criticism of Israel and has nothing whatever to do with attacks on persons or property. Your article reminds us that these psychopathic attacks are coming from a particular branch of the "White Right" which has been talking upon Satanic Judaism and killing Jews–and targeting synagogues–for quite a while.
Zenobia van Dongen , November 18, 2018 at 5:21 pm
Fascinating article by Max Blumenthal. Max Blumenthal rightly denounces Italy's fascist Casa Pound party but fails to report that Casa Pound is on excellent terms with Hezbollah, as reported by the Italian daily Repubblica in 2015. According to Repubblica, the European Parliament declared Hezbollah a terrorist group on 10 March 2005.
On 26 September 2015 a convention called "Mediterranean Solidarity", "the first international convention of solidarity [among] identities" was held in Rome attended by Rima Fakhri, member of Hezbollah's politburo and Sayyed Ammar Al Moussaw, responsible for Hezbollah's international relations, as well as by top Casa Pound leaders like Alberto Palladino, who was seen in the Donbass during fighting between Russia and the Ukraine, Franco Nerozzi, who was convicted of international terrorism in Verona after taking part in a failed coup detat on the Comoros islands, Casa Pound leader Giovanni Feola, and Luca Bertoni, representing the Lombardy-Russia Association, who always accompanies Matteo Salvini, leader of the far-right Lega, on his trips to Moscow.
"Italian right-wingers have consolidated relations with the most fundamentalist and militant Islamic groups. In 2013 the City of Rome refused permission to the Syrian Uodai Soso Ramadan, also invited to the congress, to hold a pro-Assad demonstration. At the time he was staying at CasaPound."
Source: Roma, la strana coppia Hezbollah-Casapound insieme al convegno, di Corrado Zunino, Repubblica, 20 settembre 2015
tom metzger , November 18, 2018 at 3:37 pm
The article on the neo-Nazi presence in Ukraine is very interesting. I am a white working-class white separatist with some longtime following. Even though this article had both lies, truths and maybes. It was well done. However, when it says there is no other side in the US with another view, you are wrong. I have experienced the attempted and sometimes successful penetration of the right wing by CIA types for many years and gotten rid of 2 serious penetrations in years past.
I have warned those that listen not to involve themselves in the Ukraine situation. In fact, don't travel to other countries. Where you do not really know the score and may be fighting on the wrong side anyway.
I am aware that anything the State Department involves itself in is totally suspect and probably criminal. Even if you don't acknowledge it there are other factions that are pretty much out of the right wing, but are still very strongly White separatists . In fact, my politics have moved to the left on several important issues. It would appear to me that the powers that be are attempting to design a right wing alleged neo-Nazi movement somewhat patterned some what after ISIS.It is obvious Blumenthal's article has a lot of truth in it, but his mindset tends to get in the way . When he uses the old dog whistles like Trump when labeling people. Tom Metzger
Geo , November 18, 2018 at 6:36 pm
Curious why you are a White Separatist? Is there any logical reason because the best I can gather from the many separatist commenters that have littered threads like these over the years is that they're too fragile to get by in an ethically equal society. It seems that they're greatest problem is that others have rights now so it's harder for these White Separatists to succeed seeing as how they must do so on merit instead of birthright.
Be curious to find out if there is any justification for ethnic separatism other than petty whining because of some mythical birthright you feel you're being denied?
rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 1:56 pm
Notice that they admit the connection goes back at least to 2014. We never hear much about the overthrow of the new pro-Russian government in Ukraine after the Russians had worked for four years with the pro-Western lot. Only when Nuland/Yats and co interfered did the new "government" with its Nazi links become powerful with the help of the EU and of course USA. The whole continuing insistence on Russia being an enemy has no basis in reason or sense. To support Ukraine now just because it is fanatically against Russia after decades of cooperation in the USSR is not justified by any possible link with "national security of the USA" or of Europe.
O Society , November 18, 2018 at 1:13 pm
Sadly, white nationalism is a thing the United States enjoys exporting. It's an existential crises. https://opensociet.org/2018/11/16/the-rise-of-trump-is-white-america-dying/
Bruce Gagnon , November 18, 2018 at 12:55 pm
See this video of Obama's ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt going to visit training base in western Ukraine where Nazis brought into the then newly formed National Guard are still being trained by US Army Special Forces from Fort Carson, Colorado . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxeZFS9hTUg
Patrick Lucius , November 18, 2018 at 12:01 pm
Let's not forget that the illegal coup in Ukraine and ensuing civil war was pushed by Obama/Hillary. It was HRC who promoted Dick Cheney's chief foreign adviser, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of European Affairs, and it was Nuland who was caught on tape discussing how to "midwife this thing" in Ukraine.
Nuland is wife of chief neocon Richard Kagan, founder of PNAC. This essentially restarted the cold war between Russia and America. Obama tarnished his presidency primarily by working with Clinton, including the destruction of Libya. Where were the Democrats to object to such shenanigans? I don't know where they were, but I do know where they are now–charging Trump with colluding with the Russians. I thought it was fascinating that Trump, when he secured the Republican nomination, insisted that the Republicans remove from their platform the promise of military aid to Western Ukraine, to fight the pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians. Where were the Democrats to applaud this anti-war mongering? I know where I, as a Democrat was–I was leaving the party and becoming a Trump supporter.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 18, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Thanks, these are important points, is about the neocons.
On our smaller Swedish scale ,
I was similarly disgusted with the support by the once much more ethical Social Democratic Party for the US- and EU-supported coup in Kiev.
lucius , November 18, 2018 at 7:58 pm
Lots of room for disgust In America, the traditional Democrats and Republicans both are backing the neocons' stance with just about no questioning or examination. It seems to be a tribal thing, or some sort of group response, like geese in flight, or buffalo running off a cliff
Jesse , November 18, 2018 at 11:41 am
Thank you for providing a platform for Max Blumenthal's reporting.
Wayne Mclaughlin , November 18, 2018 at 10:35 am
Very good article except for the line " .. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the failure of the EU and NATO to prevent it ." I always take issue with that representation because it implies an aggressive and forceful action by Russia when in fact Crimea seceded from Ukraine after the western backed and illegal coup of the democratically elected government.
Skip Scott , November 18, 2018 at 2:11 pm
One of the definitions of annexation is "the adding of new territory". I believe this is the way the word is being used in this article. It has come to mean "forceful acquisition" to many folks, and this leads to confusion. To those of us who know a little history, maybe a better word would have "rejoining", since Crimea was part of Russia until the early 1950's. When Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine it was still part of the USSR, so it was really no more than a gesture. The Russian naval base in Sevastopol has been there since the 1700's.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Very good point!
Wording is important, and accepting the word annexation without clarification may be a step towards buying the lie.
Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Great point Skip. Joe
dale t hood , November 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm
thank you wayne
torture this , November 18, 2018 at 10:28 am
It must be a terrible feeling to know you can't compete with people that you believe are inferior. Nice to have some fellow losers to commiserate with, I suppose.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , November 18, 2018 at 8:33 am
Ah, America, land of liberty!
Is there anything you won't do in your rabid efforts to dominate the planet?
Of course, when you think about it, these Ukrainian thugs are no worse than other outfits America heavily supports, from the mercenaries of Syria and the government of Saudi Arabia to the King of Bahrain and the government of Israel.
A couple of these last – Israel, Saudi Arabia – kill more innocent civilians than any terrorist organization could dream of doing.
And no one says a thing.
mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:27 am
Max Blumenthal does a valuable service shining a light into the dark places of Nazi Fascism in the US. Anyone who thinks these groups are too small to be important, should recall how small the movement that gave us Hitler was in it's beginnings.
mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:16 am
Pro Nazi sentiment has never died in the US Oligarchy. The CIA is essentially a fascist organization pretending to be protectors of democracy. Worship of violence and authoritarianism is endemic to the American Spirit. All the better for being the world's greatest bully, pretending to be the guardians of the highest values. Those in high places here are the evil scum of the universe.
(Thanks for the new font! So much better.)
John A , November 18, 2018 at 7:57 am
The US is now funding a schism in the Orthodox church between Ukraine and Russia. The evil of the US knows no bounds.
rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 2:01 pm
Of course, "good ole Americans" like Mike Pence claim to be Christians, and many other US Christians blame the Russian Orthodox church for not being as modern as they are and ready to accept LGBTQ..
Realist , November 18, 2018 at 4:14 am
Not surprising that some Americans think that racial bigotry is okie dokie when both political parties in Washington, especially the one that bases its platform on membership in certain favored identity groups, practice it routinely against anyone or anything Russian or Iranian. They have a few other fall guys as well, but those are the two blamed for everything these days.
No question but that Ukraine is one of the most ethnically prejudiced and fascist regimes on the planet, though that doesn't seem to bother Washington, as long as they are frenetically Russophobic. Neither does Israel's rampant anti-Arab, anti-Persian and anti-Muslim Zionism bother the bigots in DC in the slightest.
Yet they get into a lather when the small nations of Eastern Europe, especially those in the Visegrad countries (plus Austria, Slovenia and Croatia) constituting most of the Intermarium that the author alluded to, which happen to have both small populations and low birthrates, reasonably fear that their native populations will be swamped out within a couple of generations if they are forced by the EU to take in significant numbers of Islamic migrants from the lands thrown into turmoil by the U.S.-instigated wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Hungary's Viktor Orban is vilified in the West as some sort of new Hitler (must be Putin's twin brother) for implementing on a much smaller scale what Donald Trump is trying to institutionalise in the enormously larger United States.
Rather than force all these sociological "side effects" to its catastrophic wars on its putative "allies," perhaps Washington should finally see the light and do the right thing by winding down the carnage and aiding the resettlement and rebuilding of the war-torn countries by their displaced citizens. But they won't–they have overtly refused, at least until none of America's debts can be paid with devalued petrodollars, because that would let Russia off the hook, whom Washington wants to see crushed as badly as der Fuehrer did–I think it's trying to complete his mission. Plus the glorious new war against Iran would have to be cancelled. They used to say, "all roads lead to Rome." They oughta re-write that for the modern world as, "all strife traces from Washington."
mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:19 am
Excellent comments Realist.
Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 10:55 am
Like our 'Big Pharma Over Medicated Society' we in the West would rather beat the hell out of the symptom rather than cure the cause, is our American hegemonic trademark. Similar to tightening the screw so tight the fragile glass begins to crack so you fix it with a hammer. It appears our leaders love spreading their chaos. None of this shows signs of ever ending well, but yet we overdose the symptom to the extreme that the side affect is what finally kills us. In the end it only matters how it shows on a profit and loss sheet.
rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm
An excellent contribution-thanks realist.
The USA has steadfastly refused to rebuild their devastated victims' lands even when UN legal demands clearly demanded it eg Nicaragua.
Jean , November 18, 2018 at 3:01 am
Short sited or planned.
michael weddle , November 18, 2018 at 1:44 am
Excellent reporting, Max! I'm curious. Is there any connection with present or former Eric Prince mercenary soldiers, or soldiers from other private mercenary organizations, with these fascist movements?
Joe Tedesky , November 17, 2018 at 11:15 pm
This fascist trend should go well with Operation Timber Sycamore, where the U.S. armed the terrorist jihadist. When will our American leaders learn, that if you play with fire you will get burned. The rise of the Nazi is one more reason that we Americans should focus on this type of news as Max Blumenthal reports. Furthermore the American Jewish who do not support the Israeli apartheid state should join good thinking Americans to put down this disgusting happening. So thank you Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pratt, and the rest of this sick and insane DC bunch, because without you where would our Homeland Security budget be?
Think it can't happen here . the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter lived 4 blocks from me. Btw these racist don't vote, they just hate. And 'no' I didn't know him, but I know of others sick birds all of them.
And especially a warm thank you goes out to Max Blumenthal for his courageous reporting. Bless you Max. Joe
Bob Van Noy , November 18, 2018 at 10:32 am
Thank you Joe. The larger picture and insanity of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" Philosophy, is and always has been totally without moral responsibility. Interestingly, it seems to be a fundamental aspect of post WWII organizing by our own OSS, who became the CIA in 1949. Alan Dulles was busy organizing this kind of activity before that war ended.
Thanks to you Joe and of course Max Blumenthal for addressing this subject. I'll include a link to the early heritage of this bizarre and illegal concept here. Many thanks Consortium News.
Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 11:24 am
Thanks Bob reading John Mearsheimer well defined portrayal of what led up to the fall of the Ukraine as we once knew it, is reminiscent of reading Robert Parry's many articles on this subject. If you recall Parry was deeply into this U.S. led NATO aggression. Through the MSM of the West the tables were turned to point the finger to instead Russian aggression. Putin is never shown in light of his policy achievements nor are his speeches calling out to the world for sensible detente where needed ever covered, but instead Putin is demonized to no end.
Little is remembered, or even known by those in the West of another time where American and British capitalism hugged the very nature of Nazism, while the Russians even back then were too the target of this type of Western aggression. Who's needs history when dreams of speculative profit should cloud their eyes?
Nov 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
It's in Europe's elite that we find the spirit of appeasement that once enabled fascists and communists. • November 16, 2018
French President Emmanuel Macron has a new go-to rhetorical trope: alarm over the return of the horrors of the 1930s. Last summer, he decried the reappearance of populist governments "rising like a leprosy, throughout Europe," as well as a "resurgent nationalism" and the emergence of governments that support the closing of frontiers and don't respect "even the right to asylum."
Macron's targets are the newly formed government of Italy, along with Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, all resistant to the flow of migrants into Europe. He returned again to the analogy earlier this month, telling an interviewer he was "struck" by the present's similarities to the 1930s and calling again for resistance to the "nationalist leprosy." He went on this tear yet again while hosting the Armistice Day centenary commemorations, where he contrasted the "generous" France of "universal values" with the shallow nationalism of nations that look out only for their own interests, a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to President Trump.
To punctuate his point, he added a reference to Julien Benda's Treason of the Intellectuals , published in 1927, which decried burgeoning nationalist sentiments among Europe's intellectuals as a whole and certain French conservatives in particular. It closed with a paean to Franco-German cooperation, the European Union, and the United Nations.
Macron is surely correct that the 1930s were generally a terrible decade. That's true even if what he said is not all that different from the commonplace left-wing view that all conservatives who think about anything more than reducing taxes can be safely decried as fascists and Nazis and deserve no platform in our political system. But the analogy to the 1930s deserves unpacking. Whatever lessons might be learned from history, they're not nearly so straightforward as Macron seems to believe.
First of all, there was not one but two active murderous totalitarian movements popular in the '30s: fascism and communism. Communism came first. The Soviet government had probably killed 10 million innocent people before Hitler came to power. By the 1930s, huge slices of the intelligentsia in Britain, France, and, yes, the United States were head over heels in love with Stalinism. These thinkers produced reams of tributes to the bloodthirsty Soviet system, and were far more dominant in Western intellectual life than the targets of Benda's ire in the 1920s. Second, because Bolshevism came first, it acted as an accelerant, perhaps even a major cause, of fascism. One definition of fascism -- from my thesis supervisor Bob Paxton, probably the greatest American expert on the subject -- is "hard measures by a frightened middle class."
What they were frightened of, of course, was Bolshevism. And rightly so, even if pursuing violent and anti-democratic means in defense of property and order had a cost in suffering just as horrific as those they had feared.
Additionally, among the large numbers of people who were neither fascists nor communists, nor fellow travelers to either, there were significant currents of opinion hardly conducive to maintaining democratic peace. In early 1933, the Oxford Union held one of its most famous and historically significant debates: aye or nay on the motion "that this House will in no circumstance fight for its King and Country." The motion carried by a nearly two-to-one margin, a result noted and commented upon all over the world.
Some of the arguments made in favor of "aye" were standard communist fare, i.e., "It is no mere coincidence that the only country fighting for the cause of peace, Soviet Russia, is the country that has rid itself of the warmongering clique." But it's likely that the vast majority of the students who supported the motion, the bright and favored sons of Britain's establishment, were motivated by pure disgust at the horrendous toll, paid for no terribly good reason, in the trenches of the Western Front. In any case, the sentiment was widespread enough in Britain's ruling circles to buttress the arguments for appeasement made a few years later. It certainly contributed to Hitler's view that Britain and France were soft, unwilling to resist him.Macron Trash Talks "America First" In Defense of Ethnic Nationalism
So if one of the evils of the '30s was the extreme nationalism and fascism that Macron decried, another was communism. And the combined energy of both led to a spirit of appeasement on the part of those attached to neither far left or right but unable also to summon much energy to defend an imperfect bourgeois order. It's this spirit that's most analogous to the regnant attitudes in contemporary Europe.
For as world leaders and press descended upon Paris to commemorate the end of World War I, one could see that desire for appeasement take a new form. Last week, a middle-aged Pakistani Christian woman, a farm worker named Asia Bibi, was freed after eight years on death row for the charge of "blasphemy." Her conviction was overturned by Pakistan's supreme court, a decision that immediately provoked mass demonstrations by fundamentalist Muslims demanding her death. Her attorney fled the country for his safety. Her family requested asylum in Britain, a request that was reportedly denied because the British government feared it would provoke "unrest" among Muslims.
Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, those wordy celebrants of Europe's asylum generosity, have uttered not a word in support of Bibi, even as both (particularly Merkel) have facilitated entry into Europe of millions of young Muslim men as "refugees." In contrast to them, Italy's interior minister Matteo Salvini has said that Italy would welcome Bibi and her family -- who at this writing are still unable to leave Pakistan.
It's a telling moment -- the government indirectly accused by Macron of harkening back the dark days of the 1930s is ready to open its arms to a genuine political refugee, while the governments of Theresa May, Macron, and Merkel opt for social peace -- a "paix bien Munichoise" as a writer for the French journal Causeur aptly describes the establishment's accommodating stance towards fundamentalist Islam on European soil.
The Bibi case brings to mind the fascinating story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch woman of Somali origin who became a member of parliament and then, after 9/11, a critic of Islam. Because of threats of murder from Dutch Islamists, she was first forced to live under police protection and eventually had her citizenship withdrawn by the Dutch government. She moved to America, becoming, as Salman Rushdie put it, "maybe the first refugee from Western Europe since the Holocaust."
But in Macron's view, and the view of others from the West's Davos-style establishment, the threat to Europe's core values can come only from "nationalists" like Hungary's Victor Orbán, Italy's Salvini, and the likes of Donald Trump. In his famous poem written at the outbreak of World War II, W.H. Auden famously called the 1930s "a low dishonest decade." The attitudes that made it so are very much alive in Europe's ruling classes today.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
Nov 17, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org
Was French president Emmanuel Macron correct at the WWI commemoration over the weekend when he asserted that patriotism is the opposite of nationalism in a pointed dig at US president Donald Trump? RPI Board Members Lew Rockwell and John Laughland join scholar George Szamuely on RT's Crosstalk to debate whether nationalism is the bogeyman that Macron and others make it out to be. Or is blaming nationalism just a way to further destroy national sovereignty and bring about an unelected permanent globalist empire?
Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Nov 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller,
President Macron's protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France's WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.
Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:
"He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland."
This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the "appetite of vice."
While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron's words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism's grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.
This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a "nationalist." Though the fault is with us, not him.
" Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,' we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values," President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.
Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for "politicizing" such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.
With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.
Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.
Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn't a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.
For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce, so meaningless was the comparison.
Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.
Imperialism -- as opposed to nationalism -- seeks to impose a nation's way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.
Truly, President Trump's nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:
" It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe's] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered "ordinary vicissitudes", but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.
It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.
Today's imperialism is known as globalism.
It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation's natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.
Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China's designs.
And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.
While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity's instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.
It is this fundamental distinction between the United States' founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.
The people of France are "granted" their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.
As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, "As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count".
France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.
Nationalism - or nationism, if you will - therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history . Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.
A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one's own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.
Certainly nationalism's could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, "these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order," then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.
This is what President Trump understands.
Nov 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
In a rebuke that bordered on a national insult Sunday, Emmanuel Macron sniped at Donald Trump's calling himself a nationalist.
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism; nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," Macron said.
As for Trump's policy of "America first," Macron trashed such atavistic thinking in this new age: "By saying we put ourselves first and the others don't matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."
Though he is being hailed as Europe's new anti-Trump leader who will stand up for transnationalism and globalism, Macron revealed his ignorance of America.
Trump's ideas are not ideological but rooted in our country's history.
America was born between the end of the French and Indian War, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Both the general who led us in the Revolution and the author of that declaration became president. Both put America first. And both counseled their countrymen to avoid "entangling" or "permanent" alliances with any other nation, as we did for 160 years.
Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lacking in patriotism?
When Woodrow Wilson, after being re-elected in 1916 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," took us into World War I, he did so as an "associate," not as an Allied power. American troops fought under American command.Emmanuel Macron: The New King of Europe? When 'America First' Becomes Negotiable
After that war, the U.S. Senate rejected an alliance with France. Under Franklin Roosevelt, Congress formally voted for neutrality in any future European war.
The U.S. emerged from World War II as the least bloodied and least damaged nation because we stayed out for more than two years after it had begun.
We did not invade France until four years after it was occupied, the British had been thrown off the Continent, and Josef Stalin's Soviet Union had been fighting and dying for three years.
The leaders who kept us out of the two world wars as long as they did -- did they not serve our nation well, given that America's total losses were just over 500,000 dead, compared with the millions that other nations lost?
At the Armistice Day ceremony, Macron declared, "By saying we put ourselves first and the others don't matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest its moral values."
But Trump did not say that other countries don't matter. He only said we should put our own country first.
What country does Emmanuel Macron put first?
Does the president of France see himself as a citizen of the world with responsibility for all of Europe and all of mankind?
Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot of the 20th century. Yet he spoke of a Europe of nation-states, built a national nuclear arsenal, ordered NATO out of France in 1966, and, in Montreal in 1967, declared, "Long live a free Quebec" -- inciting French Canadians to rise up against "les Anglo-Saxons" and create their own nation.
Was de Gaulle lacking in patriotism?
By declaring American nationalists anti-patriotic, Macron has asserted a claim to the soon-to-be-vacant chair of Angela Merkel.
But is Macron really addressing the realities of the new Europe and world in which we now live? Or is he simply assuming a heroic liberal posture to win the applause of Western corporate and media elites?
The realities: in Britain, Scots are seeking secession, and the English have voted to get out of the European Union. Many Basques and Catalans wish to secede from Spain. Czechs and Slovaks have split the blanket and parted ways.
Anti-EU sentiment is rampant in populist-dominated Italy.
A nationalism their peoples regard as deeply patriotic has triumphed in Poland and Hungary and is making gains even in Germany.
The leaders of the world's three greatest military powers -- Trump in the U.S., Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China -- are all nationalists.
Turkish nationalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules in Ankara; Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi is head of India. Jair Bolsonaro, a Trumpian nationalist, is the incoming president of Brazil. Is not Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli nationalist?
In France, a poll of voters last week showed that Marine Le Pen's renamed party, Rassemblement National, has moved ahead of Macron's party for the May 2019 European Parliament elections.
If there is a valid criticism of Trump's foreign policy, it is not that he has failed to recognize the new realities of the 21st century. It's that he has not moved expeditiously to dissolve old alliances that put America at risk of war in faraway lands where no vital U.S. interests exist.
Why are we still committed to fight for a South Korea far richer and more populous than the nuclear-armed North? Why are U.S. planes and ships still bumping into Russian planes and ships in the Baltic and Black seas?
Why are we still involved in the half-dozen wars into which Bush II and Barack Obama got us in the Middle East?
Why do we not have the "America first" foreign policy we voted for?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
Nov 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Lord Lemur , 7 hours agoOrwell's intellect is overrated, and his aphorisms have become thought-ending cliches. Look at the string of assumptions in quote above. Do individuals really 'choose' to 'sink' their consciousness into a greater body? What makes far more sense is that at the 'core' of I there is a 'we', which is conditioned by prior forms of particularity - religion, ethnicity, language, race, and culture. This is the basis of a harmonious common good, and a meaningful lifeworld.
Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, Managerialism, and atomization. His thinking narrates the moral discourse shaped by that anti-social environment and its effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are a lot closer the truth), and his inability to grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a whole.
In reality, power is a moral imperative, and its acquisition and application the inaugural raison d'être of the state and the concomitant society. Hence, the cogito subject at the heart of Orwell's evaluative presuppositions is itself a product of prior systems of power, upstream from personal judgment and value sets.
Orwell proceeds to dem